Petitioner - Valuation Disclosure.pdf

Geosebeck Holdings Limited Partnership, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Clinton, Respondent · 25-002212-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GROESBECK HOLDINGS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, 

Docket No. 25-002212 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

Respondent. 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333

bee@wwrplaw.com

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

(248) 731-3089

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

soloughlin@hallahanlaw.com

kmelcher@hallahanlaw.com

PETITIONER’S VALUATION DISCLOSURE 

Petitioner Groesbeck Holdings Limited Partnership, by and through its attorneys, 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, submits the attached appraisal by Brandon L. Ellis, 

MAI as its Valuation Disclosure. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

By: /s/ Brian E. Etzel 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

Dated: September 8, 2026 

Attorneys for Petitioner

September 8, 2026

Groesbeck Holdings Limited Partnership

c/o: Mr. Brian Etzel, Esq.

Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC

380 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 300

Birmingham, MI 48009

Re:

Appraisal pertaining to:

Tax Parcel # 16-11-33-126-006

34800 Groesbeck Highway

Clinton Township, Michigan 48035

Dear Mr. Etzel:

In accordance with your request, Value Trends has prepared a detailed analysis of the above

captioned real property, for the purpose of identifying its True Cash Value, as defined on page 11

of the attached appraisal report. This appraisal is intended to function as evidence in the litigation

involving an Ad Valorem dispute between the Clinton Charter Township and ownership of the

subject. The intended use of the analysis and conclusions rendered are solely for the purpose of

addressing the existing ad valorem dispute, and no other purpose.

The analysis which accompanies this cover letter has been prepared in an Appraisal Report, as

defined by USPAP (Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice) 2024 edition. One

retrospective date of valuation has been included in the attached report. The date of valuation

pertains to December 31, 2024, which represents tax year 2025.

The appraised real estate pertains to the real property identified as 34800 Groesbeck Highway.

Clinton Charter Township, Macomb County, Michigan. The real estate is a 12.084± acre site

improved with a big box commercial building containing 113,950± square feet. The property is

identified as Tax ID 16-11-33-126-006.

The intended users of the proposed appraisal report include the client (Groesbeck Holdings Limited

Partnership), the client’s legal counsel, and other representatives assigned on behalf of the client.

Etzel letter

Page 2

September 8, 2026

The appraisal report is not intended for other uses such as financing, the soliciting of potential

purchasers, estate planning, or any other purpose. Other than for use by these parties, this appraisal

may not be reproduced in all, in part, or utilized by any other entity, without the written authorization

of Brandon L. Ellis, MAI the appraiser signing this report.

This letter of transmittal is attached to, and accompanied by my appraisal report. The legal

description of the subject will be found beginning on page sixteen (16), whereas the property

description begins on page thirty-seven (37).

The opinions of value rendered are based on a thorough analysis of the pertinent factors which were

considered to impact the subject's valuation. The accompanying report describes, in detail, the

methods utilized in the appraisal and contains data gathered during the market investigations.

This appraisal report is subject to the Restrictions, Certifications, and Limiting Conditions contained

in the addendum and all other assumptions which may be stated elsewhere within the report. 

Furthermore, this report has been prepared in a manner which is intended to comply with the

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and ethics and standards of the

Appraisal Institute.

At this time, I certify that we have no interest in the subject property, past, present, or contemplated. 

In addition, I certify that neither the fee and/or employment is dependent on the value conclusions

set forth in this report.

After careful consideration of all pertinent facts and information, the subject’s True Cash Value was

concluded as of December 31, 2024 as follows:

$1,000,000

ONE MILLION DOLLARS

Etzel letter

Page 3

September 8, 2026

Should you have any further questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at

(248) 840-0545.

Respectfully Submitted,

VALUE TRENDS, INC.

Brandon L. Ellis, MAI

Vice President

Certified General Appraiser - Michigan

License # 1205068791

attachment

34800 Groesbeck Hwy

Clinton Twp., MI 48035

APPRAISED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

Brandon L. Ellis, MAI

Groesbeck Holdings LP

President

c/o: Mr. Brian Etzel, Esq.

Value Trends, Inc.

Williams Williams Rattner &

43145 W. 13 Mile Road

 Plunkett, PC

Novi, MI 48377

380 N. Old Woodward Avenue,

 Suite 300

Birmingham, MI 48009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I: Introduction

Summary of Salient Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Purpose, Function, & Scope of the Appraisal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Date of Value Estimate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Property Rights Appraised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Definition of True CashValue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction to Approaches to Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Part II: Factual Descriptions

Identification of the Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Legal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Ownership, Occupancy, & Sales History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Area, City, & Neighborhood Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Assessed Valuation & Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Description of Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Subject Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Hazardous Waste or Property Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Americans with Disabilities Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Part III: Analysis of Data and Value Conclusions

Present Use of Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Highest & Best Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Land Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Income Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Direct Sales Comparison Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Final Reconciliation & Value Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Exposure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

A D D E N D U M

Restrictions, Certifications, & Limiting Conditions

Qualifications of Appraiser(s)

PART I:

INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS

ADDRESS:

34800 Groesbeck Highway, Clinton Township,

Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the east side of Groesbeck

Highway, south of 15 Mile Road.

TYPE OF PROPERTY:

The property is a standalone big box building that

was originally occupied by Kmart.

TYPE OF REPORT:

Appraisal Report.

TAX ID #:

16-11-33-126-006

OWNERSHIP:

Groesbeck Holdings Limited Partnership

PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL:

The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the

retrospective True Cash Value of the subject’s Fee

Simple ownership interest.

INTEREST APPRAISED:

Fee simple interest.

IMPROVEMENTS:

The property is improved with a commercial big box

building containing 113,950± square feet. The

improvements were built in 1970. The property has

been maintained in poor condition, with substantial

mold growth throughout the entirety of the building. 

Value Trends has been provided a cost estimate to

remove the existing interior finish.

EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION:

As a result of this appraisal being a Retrospective

Value Opinion an inherent Extraordinary

Assumption must be made relative to the condition

of the improvements as of the dates of valuation. In

this instance, the assumption made is that the subject

improvements were in relatively similar condition to

that present at the time of my inspection on August

17, 2026, unless otherwise noted.

When inspected more or less the entirety of the

building was observed to contain a mold that was

black in color. The mold was observed on ceiling

4

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS, Continued

tiles and drywall. It was obvious that water had

infiltrated substantial portions of the building in the

past. The roof is understood to have been repaired

and restored in 2025. A professional identification of

the type of mold present was unavailable. Value

Trends is not qualified in the specific identification

and/or confirmation of environmental conditions such

as molds and other potentially hazardous substances. 

That said I am aware of situations where the presence

of a certain type of black mold can render an

improvement unusable. No responsibility is assumed

for any such condition, or for any expertise or

engineering knowledge required to discover them. 

The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if

desired. An Extraordinary Assumption has been

made that any environmental conditions present

in the building are capable of being mitigated.

Value Trends also observed an older type square

vinyl floor tile in several places in the building. The

floor tile was peeling up, cracking and loose in

places. I’m aware that some floor tiles of this type

can contain asbestos, and the removal of asbestos is

generally more costly than materials without such

environmental conditions. As with the situation with

the mold, Value Trends is not qualified in the specific

identification and/or confirmation of environmental

conditions such as asbestos and other potentially

hazardous substances. No responsibility is assumed

for any such condition, or for any expertise or

engineering knowledge required to discover them. 

The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if

desired. An Extraordinary Assumption has been

made that the floor tiles do not contain asbestos.

An Extraordinary Assumption has been made that

any easements on the subject do not have an adverse

impact upon the value of the subject.

SITE SIZE:

12.084± acres

5

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS, Continued

ZONING:

B-3, General Business

HIGHEST & BEST USE:

Commercial

DATE OF VALUATION:

December 31, 2024 (Tax-year 2025)

LAND VALUATION

$650,000

VALUE VIA INCOME APPROACH:

$500,000

VALUE VIA MARKET APPROACH:

$1,250,000

FINAL VALUE CONCLUSION:

$1,000,000

MARKETING/EXPOSURE TIME:

Up to 1± year

6

PURPOSE, FUNCTION, & SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL

The appraised real estate pertains to the real property located at 34800 Groesbeck Highway, in

Clinton Township, Macomb County, Michigan. The property includes one (1) tax parcel containing

12.084± acres and improved with a big box commercial building.

The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the retrospective True Cash Value of the subject’s Fee

Simple ownership interest. The date of valuation is effective as of December 31, 2024. In turn, the

appraisal is intended to function as evidence in an Ad Valorem Tax dispute between Clinton Charter

Township and ownership of the subject. This appraisal is not to be used for any other purposes

including mortgage financing, eminent domain, and bankruptcy proceedings.

This appraisal includes an extraordinary assumption. An extraordinary assumption is defined in the

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2024 edition as:

“An assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain

information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the

appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

Comment: Uncertain information might include physical, legal, or economic

characteristics of the subject property; or conditions external to the property, such

as market conditions or trends; or the integrity of data used in an analysis.”

Due to the date of valuation preceding the time period during which this appraisal was completed,

it is referred to as a Retrospective Value Opinion. According to The Dictionary of Real Estate

Appraisal, 7th edition, the definition of a Retrospective Value Opinion is as follows.

“A value opinion effective as of a specified historical date. The term retrospective

does not define a type of value. Instead, it defines a value opinion as being effective

at some specific prior date. Value as of a historical date is frequently sought in

connection with property tax appraisals, damage models, lease renegotiation,

deficiency judgments, estate tax, and condemnation. Inclusion of the type of value

with this term is appropriate, e.g, “retrospective market value opinion.””

As a result of this appraisal being a Retrospective Value Opinion an inherent Extraordinary

Assumption must be made relative to the condition of the improvements as of the dates of valuation. 

In this instance, the assumption made is that the subject improvements were in relatively similar

condition to that present at the time of my inspection on August 17, 2026, unless otherwise noted.

When inspected more or less the entirety of the building was observed to contain a mold that was

black in color. The mold was observed on ceiling tiles and drywall. It was obvious that water had

infiltrated substantial portions of the building in the past. The roof is understood to have been

repaired and restored in 2025. A professional identification of the type of mold present was

7

PURPOSE, FUNCTION, & SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL, Continued

unavailable. Value Trends is not qualified in the specific identification and/or confirmation of

environmental conditions such as molds and other potentially hazardous substances. That said I am

aware of situations where the presence of a certain type of black mold can render an improvement

unusable. No responsibility is assumed for any such condition, or for any expertise or engineering

knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 

An Extraordinary Assumption has been made that any environmental conditions present in

the building are capable of being mitigated.

Value Trends also observed an older type square vinyl floor tile in several places in the building. 

The floor tile was peeling up, cracking and loose in places. I’m aware that some floor tiles of this

type can contain asbestos, and the removal of asbestos is generally more costly than materials

without such environmental conditions. As with the situation with the mold, Value Trends is not

qualified in the specific identification and/or confirmation of environmental conditions such as

asbestos and other potentially hazardous substances. No responsibility is assumed for any such

condition, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is

urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. An Extraordinary Assumption has been made

that the floor tiles do not contain asbestos.

An Extraordinary Assumption has been made that any easements on the subject do not have an

adverse impact upon the value of the subject.

In conducting this appraisal, I have completed the following steps to gather, confirm and analyze the

data.

 •

Request for data regarding the subject, i.e. ownership, sales history, occupancy, operating

income and expenses, etc., was submitted to the owner and their representatives.

 •

Physically inspected the subject and the surrounding neighborhood. Both interior and

exterior inspections were conducted. 

 •

Collected factual information about the subject and the surrounding market and confirmed

that information with various sources.

 •

Prepared a highest and best use analysis of the subject site as though vacant, and of the

subject as improved.

 •

Collected and confirmed market information needed to consider the three traditional

approaches to value: Cost approach, sales comparison approach and income capitalization

approach.

 •

Physically inspected the comparable properties when possible and as identified.

8

PURPOSE, FUNCTION, & SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL, Continued

 •

Prepared a detailed appraisal report setting forth the conclusion derived in this analysis as

well as the information upon which the conclusions are based.

Details pertaining to both the subject real estate and other similar properties are contained in the

appraisal report. An extensive search for comparable data was conducted. In gathering this data,

the appraisers have researched municipal records & appraisal files, and discussed market activity

with local brokers, owner/managers, lenders, and other appraisers. As a result of these efforts, a

reasonable comfort level has been obtained as it relates to the comparable data and market trends as

of the date of valuation.

The intended users of the proposed appraisal report include the client (Groesbeck Holdings Limited

Partnership), the client’s legal counsel, and other representatives assigned on behalf of the client. 

The appraisal report is not intended for other uses such as financing, the soliciting of potential

purchasers, estate planning, or any other purpose. Other than for use by these parties, this appraisal

may not be reproduced in all, in part, or utilized by any other entity, without the written authorization

of Brandon L. Ellis, MAI the appraiser signing this report.

This appraisal report has been completed in a manner which is in compliance with the Uniform

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and Appraisal Standards as required by the

Appraisal Institute. The results of the appraisal are provided in an Appraisal Report.1

I have performed no services, 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 and/or the date of valuation.

 1 USPAP, 2024 Edition, Standards Rule 2-2.

9

DATE OF VALUE ESTIMATE

The effective date of valuation pertains to December 31, 2024. The subject was inspected on August

17, 2026. The photographs of the subject contained in this appraisal report were taken at the time

of the inspection.

PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED

The interest appraised is the fee simple estate. The Fee Simple estate is defined in The Dictionary

of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th edition 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.”

10

DEFINITION OF TRUE CASH VALUE

The values concluded in this report reflect what is referred to as True Cash Value. True Cash

Value may be defined as follows:

“True cash value” means the usual selling price at the place where the property to

which the term is applied is at the time of assessment, being the price that could be

obtained for the property at private sale, and not at auction sale except as otherwise

provided in this section, or at forced sale. The usual selling price may include sales

at public auction held by a non-governmental agency or person if those sales have

become a common method of acquisition in the jurisdiction for the class of property

being valued. The usual selling price does not include sales at public auction if the

sale is part of a liquidation of the seller’s assets in a bankruptcy proceeding or if the

seller is unable to use common marketing techniques to obtain the usual selling price

for the property. A sale or other disposition by this state or an agency or political

subdivision of state of land acquired for delinquent taxes or an appraisal made in

connection with the sale or other disposition or the value attributed to the property

of regulated public utilities by a governmental regulatory agency for rate-making

purposes is not controlling evidence of true cash value for assessment purposes. In

determining the true cash value, the assessor shall also consider the advantages and

disadvantages of location; quality of soil; zoning; existing use; present economic

income of structures, including farm structures; and present economic income of

land if the land is being farmed or otherwise put to income producing use; quantity

and value of standing timber; water and power privileges; and mines, minerals,

quarries, or other valuable deposits known to be available in the land and their

value...2

“As used in subsection (1), “present economic income”means for leased or rented

property the ordinary, general, and usual economic return realized from the lease

or rental of property negotiated under current, contemporary conditions between

parties equally knowledgeable and familiar with real estate values. The actual

income generated by the lease or rental of property is not the controlling indicator

of its true cash value in all cases. This subsection does not apply to property subject

to a lease entered into before January 1, 1984 for which the terms of the lease

governing the rental rate of tax liability have not been renegotiated after December

31, 1983....” 3

In addition to True Cash Value, the subject valuation also adheres to what is referred to as Market

Value. Market Value is defined by Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery

 2 MCL 211.27(1)

 3 MCL 211.27(1) (5).

11

DEFINITION OF TRUE CASH VALUE, Continued

and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) between July 5, 1990 and August 24, 1990, by the Federal

Reserve System (FRS), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the Office of Comptroller of the

Currency (OCC). This definition is also referenced in regulations jointly published by the OCC,

OTS, FRS, and FDIC and in the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, dated December

2, 2010. The definition is further set forth on pages 48 through 50 of the book titled The Appraisal

of Real Estate, 15th Edition, and reads as follows:

Market value is the major focus of most real property appraisal assignments. Both

economic and legal definitions of market value have been developed and refined,

although a multiplicity of sometimes conflicting market value definitions used for

different purposes can present potential problems in appraisal assignments.

Citable definitions of market value can be found in state and federal regulations,

laws, or publications. For example, the following definition of market value is used

by agencies that regulate federally insured financial institutions in the United States:

The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open

market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting

prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the

passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

 • 

buyer and seller are typically motivated;

 • 

both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they

consider their own best interests;

 • 

a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

 • 

payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial

arrangements comparable thereto; and

 • 

the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold

unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by

anyone associated with the sale.

It is understood that the Michigan Courts typically treat True Cash Value, Cash Value and Fair

Market Value synonymously.

12

INTRODUCTION TO THE APPROACHES TO VALUE

The appraisal process is an orderly program, wherein, the data utilized in estimating the value of the

subject property is acquired, classified, analyzed and presented. This first step in this process

involves defining the appraisal problem as to the identification of the real estate, effective date of

value estimate, identification of the property rights being appraised, and the type of value being

sought. Once this has been accomplished, the appraiser embarks upon the collection of data and the

analysis of several factors which affect the value of the subject property. Consequently, data is

collected with respect to the subject property's neighborhood, site, improvements, highest and best

use, and finally, the application of the approaches to value. There are three traditional methods of

determining true cash value, or fair market value, which have been found acceptable and reliable by

the courts. They are the cost approach, the income approach, and the direct sales comparison

approach (also known as the market approach).

The cost approach is based upon the proposition that the informed purchaser would pay no more than

the cost of producing a property with the same or similar utility as the subject. In this approach, the

subject site is valued as vacant by analyzing the sales of similar sites in the market. The cost of

replacing the improvements is estimated based on current costs. From this replacement cost new,

a deduction must be considered for estimated amounts of depreciation or diminished utility. The

estimated site value and the depreciated cost of the improvements are then combined to arrive at an

indication of value.

The direct sales comparison approach is based upon the proposition that an informed purchaser

would pay no more for a property than the cost to him of acquiring an existing property with similar

utility. This approach involves the analysis and comparison of market transactions, i.e., the prices

being paid for similar properties, prices asked by owners, and offers made by prospective purchasers. 

Adjustments are then made to the sale price of the comparable properties to arrive at an indication

of what the subject property might sell or have sold for. The unit prices of the comparable properties

are then adjusted for differences and correlated into an indication of value for the subject.

The income capitalization approach is based upon the assumption that there is a definite relationship

between the amount of income a property is expected to earn and to its value. A number of appraisal

principles form the basis of this approach, with the principle of anticipation being particularly

applicable. This principle affirms that a value is created by the expectation of the benefits to be

derived in the future. The income capitalization approach is an appraisal technique in which the

anticipated income of the subject property is processed in order to arrive at an indication of value. 

The technique of converting income into value is called capitalization.

The final step in the appraisal process is the reconciliation or correlation of the value indications. 

Here, the appraiser considers the relative applicability of each of the approaches used and the major

emphasis and confidence is placed upon the most reliable and supportable conclusions of value. The

purpose of the appraisal, the type of property, and the characteristics of the data gathered are all

considerations which influence the final indication of value.

13

INTRODUCTION TO THE APPROACHES TO VALUE, Continued

All three approaches are based on market data and are implemented when such data is both available

and applicable for the property type appraised. This appraisal pertains to one (1) tax parcel with

12.084± acres improved with a big box commercial building containing 113,950± square feet. The

subject was formerly occupied by Kmart but has been vacant for several years.

In this appraisal, only the direct sales comparison and income approaches to value are considered

applicable and have been utilized.

The cost approach to value has been considered but not utilized due to the age and condition of the

improvements and the fact that the typical purchaser would not rely upon this valuation technique

in decision making.

For this appraisal assignment, our research for sales and leases included the following sources for

data: (1) Value Trends files, (2) other appraisers, (3) assessment records, (4) and real estate brokers. 

The results of these efforts indicate that an adequate supply of comparable data exists to provide a

reliable indication of the subject’s true cash value.

14

PART II:

FACTUAL DESCRIPTIONS

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY

The real property that is the subject of this report is identified as tax parcel number 16-11-33-126-

006. The property is also identified by its address 34800 Groesbeck Highway, Clinton Township,

Michigan.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

The following legal description was taken from community assessing records.

Tax Parcel 16-11-33-126-006

50-11-33-126-006 D463B5B2, B5C2 B5D3A & B5D3C & 464B2C1 76S T2N R13E

SEC 33 COMM AT N 1/4 POST SEC 33; TH N 89 DEG 40' 40" W 660.70 FT; TH

S 0 DEG 39' W 470.38 FT TO POBEG; TH S 0 DEG 39' W 505.54 FT; TH N 89

DEG 20' W 184.17 FT; TH S 31 DEG 20' 22" W 574.93 FT; TH N 58 DEG 39' 30"

W 499.11 FT; TH N 31 DEG 20' 22" E 880.0 FT; TH S 87 DEG 53' 46" E 457.81 FT

TO POB. CONTAINS 12.084 AC.

16

OWNERSHIP, OCCUPANCY & SALES HISTORY

Ownership of the subject real estate is held under the name Groesbeck Holdings Limited Partnership. 

Ownership’s address is as follows.

Groesbeck Holdings Limited Partnership

5657 W. Maple Road

West Bloomfield, MI 48322

The subject was acquired by its current ownership in 2006. There have been no sales of the subject

within 3 years of the date of valuation.

The subject is a big box commercial building that was originally constructed in 1970 and occupied

by Kmart. Kmart vacated the property in around 2016. As of the date of valuation the subject was

vacant and listed for lease.

17

GENERAL AREA, CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA

Area and city data is gathered by appraisers to analyze the forces which influence both property uses

and values in the subject's market area. The investigation presents an overview of the economic,

social, governmental and environmental influences which affect the subject. Inferences drawn from

analyzing this data assist in forming a basis for determining forms of obsolescence within the market.

GENERAL AREA

The real property that is the subject of this appraisal is located on the east side of Groesbeck

Highway, south of 15 Mile Road, in Clinton Township, Macomb County, Michigan.

Clinton Township is a highly developed suburban community with a land area approximating 28.2±

square miles. Neighboring communities include the Cities of Fraser, Roseville, and St Clair Shores

to the south; Sterling Heights to the west; Macomb Township to the north; and Mt Clemens and

Harrison Township to the east. The City of Mt Clemens is partially surrounded by Clinton

Township. As of the 2020 Census, the population of Clinton Township was 100,513 persons, which

represents an increase of 3,717 persons, or 3.8% from the year 2010 Census.

Clinton Township is positioned in the central southern section of Macomb County, which is in turn

positioned within the central section of the Detroit Combined Statistical Area (CSA). While the

CSA consists of ten counties, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties comprise the majority of the

population. The other counties that make up the Detroit CSA, listed from highest population to least

include Genesee, Washtenaw, St. Clair, Livingston, Monroe, Lenawee and Lapeer. The map on the

following page illustrates the location of the subject within the State of Michigan.

Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual estimates for the year 2021, the Detroit CSA is the

twelfth largest (5.425± million people) metropolitan area in the country. The 2020 Census indicates

the Detroit CSA comprises approximately 53.8% of the State's population. Between year 2010 and

2020, the population of the counties that make up the current Detroit CSA increased a total of

105,932 persons, or 2.0%.

18

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

19

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued 

TL 

Re 

SUBJECT 

| PROPERTY # 

[© 

Au Sable Pt 

Point aux 

{ 

> SEs 

ale A 

res, 

~ STATE MAP 

19

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

TRANSPORTATION

Clinton Township is a suburban community north of the City of Detroit, which is the hub of Wayne

County and the Detroit MSA. One major freeway runs through the community and there are other

not far removed. In addition there are several major roads through the community among which

include Gratiot Avenue, Groesbeck Highway, Metropolitan Parkway, and Hall Road. These

freeways and major roads, and their proximity to the subject are discussed in the paragraphs below.

Among those freeways in close proximity to the subject are I-94, I-696, and I-75. The I-94 freeway

is located less than 2 miles southeast of the subject at its nearest point. Access is available from 15

Mile Road and Gratiot Avenue. In the vicinity of the subject I-94 extends in a north / south direction

between the City of Detroit and Port Huron where it provides access to Canada via the Blue Water

Bridge. I-94 continues west of Detroit to Chicago and beyond. The next nearest freeway is I-696,

which is located just under 4 miles south. I-696 extends east / west for several miles through the

northern suburban communities of Metro Detroit. M-53 exists as a freeway just over 6 miles

northwest of the subject. As a freeway M-53 extends north / south through a few communities in

Macomb County. M-59 exists as a freeway around 8 miles northwest of the subject, extending east

/ west between Macomb County and the City of Pontiac in Oakland County. 

There are several major surface roads in close proximity to the subject including Groesbeck Highway

(M-97), Gratiot Avenue (M-3), 15 Mile Road, and others. The subject is located on the east side of

Groesbeck Highway. In this vicinity Groesbeck Highway is a major 5-lane State highway that

extends in a northeast / southwest direction parallel with a railroad corridor just to the west. 

Development along Groesbeck Highway is largely industrial with smaller areas of commercial use. 

The next nearest major road is 15 Mile Road, which is an east / west sectional corridor with 5-lanes. 

Development along 15 Mile Road is generally commercial at major intersections and tends to be

more residential in between. Gratiot Avenue (M-3) runs nearly parallel with Groesbeck Highway

just over 1 mile to the east. Gratiot Avenue is a major commercial corridor in Southeast Michigan

and extends north northeast from Detroit’s CBD through downtown Mt Clemens and north toward

Port Huron. Development along Gratiot Avenue is primarily and heavily commercial, as opposed

to Groesbeck Highway. 16 Mile Road, also known as Metropolitan Parkway is located just over 1

mile north of the subject and extends in an east / west direction. Metropolitan Parkway is a 6-lane

boulevard and extends east to the Lake Saint Clair Metropark.

Four major commercial airports serve the Detroit metropolitan region. Northeast of Detroit's Central

Business District is the Detroit City Airport. Southwest of the city is the Detroit Metropolitan

Airport which is the major passenger and cargo terminal airport for the region providing regular

flights to all parts of the nation and the world. West of Metropolitan Airport, Willow Run Airport

handles a considerable amount of corporate air and cargo activity. The Oakland-Pontiac airport is

located on M-59, within Waterford Township.

20

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

Rail service to and from the Detroit area is provided by several major American and Canadian

railways. The railways provide both freight and passenger service between Detroit and the other

major population and manufacturing centers within the region. One of the region's natural amenities

is its location on the Detroit River and other bodies of water. From the standpoint of transportation,

the Detroit River is one of the world's busiest waterways. The Port of Detroit provides terminals for

ocean going ships as well as lake freighters. The other lakes and rivers provide resources for

commerce and recreation.

POPULATION:

The table below summarizes population and household trends for Clinton Township, Roseville,

Fraser, and Macomb County. Clinton Township experienced an increase in population over the past

decade. In the nearby Cities of Roseville and Fraser the population declined between 2020 and 2024

per ACS estimates. The County as a whole experienced an increase in population over the last

decade.

POPULATION TREND ANALYSIS

POPULATION

2010

2020

%

CHANGE

2024 ACS

%

CHANGE

CLINTON TWP

96,796

100,513

3.8%

101,366

0.8%

ROSEVILLE

47,299

47,710

0.9%

47,123

-1.2%

FRASER

14,480

14,726

1.7%

14,583

-1.0%

MACOMB COUNTY

840,978

881,217

4.8%

886,175

0.6%

HOUSEHOLDS

2010

2020

%

CHANGE

2024 ACS

%

CHANGE

CLINTON TWP

42,036

44,372

5.6%

47,750

7.6%

ROSEVILLE

19,553

20,085

2.7%

21,226

5.7%

FRASER

6,105

6,279

2.9%

6,592

5.0%

MACOMB COUNTY

331,667

353,201

6.5%

362,586

2.7%

21

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

Over the past decade the number of occupied households in Clinton Township increased at a greater

rate than the population. A growth in occupied household was reported in Roseville, Fraser, and

Macomb County overall.

EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS:

The Detroit area economy was and remains dependent upon manufacturing; however, there is also

significant emphasis on health care, banking, and utilities. Provided beginning on the following page

is a list of Metro Detroit's twenty largest employers effective as of 2007 through 2019 as provided

by Crain’s Detroit Business. The reader should note the heavy reliance upon automotive,

governmental and medical related jobs. The local economy has been improving over recent years

leading to modest job growth, especially in the manufacturing sector.

22

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

TWENTY LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN METRO DETROIT

NO.

EMPLOYER

FULL TIME

EMPLOYEES

2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2016 / 2015 / 2014 / 2013 / 2012 / 2011 / 2010 / 2009 / 2008 / 2007

BUSINESS TYPE

1

Ford Motor Co.

 46,000 / 48,000 / 48,000 / 47,000 / 44,598 / 43,977 / 43,977 / 39,134 / 38,000 / 38,000 / 44,000 / 45,000 / 55,342

Automobile Manufacturer

2

University of Michigan

35,350 / 34,067 / 32,749 / 31,655 / 30,852 / 29,855 / 29,551 / 28,525 / 27,754 / 27,145 / 26,433 / 25,699 / 33,374

Public university and health care 

system

3

FCA US LLC (Chrysler, LLC)

34,452 / 35,399 / 32,514 / 32,508 / 33,657 / 32,106 / 29,006 / 25,733 / 21,927 / 18,255 / 19,882 / 29,205 / 32,597

Automotive manufacturer

4

General Motors Corp.

32,770 / 37,400 / 37,713 / 36,628 / 32,353 / 30,570 / 26,843/ 25,813 / 24,867 / 25,903 / 20,800 / 40,142 / 41,861

Automobile Manufacturer

5

Beaumont Hospitals

27,491 / 28,012 / 28,038 / 25,721 / 22,225 / 13,223 / 13,134 / 12,767 / 12,437 / 14,495 / 15,275 / 16,432 / 12,638

Hospital

6

Henry Ford Health System

26,929 / 23,724 / 17,608 / 16,919 / 17,332 / 17,492 / 17,831 / 18,402 / 19,951 / 18,388 / 18,282 / 16,542 / 15,139

Health care system

7

U.S. Government

18,893 / 18,817 / 18,920 / 18,862 / 18,701 / 18,703 / 18,600 / 19,033 / 18,900 / 18,197 / 16,694 / 15,617 / 15,328

Federal government

8

Rock Ventures

17,887 / 17,819 / 16,617 / 14,237 / 13,445 / 11,563 / 9,423 / 5,984 / 2,836 / na / na / na / na

Mortgage banking

9

Trinity Health

16,403 / 15,899 / 14,676 / 15,214 / 14,231 / 14/341 / 14,062 / 13,828 / 13,123 / 12,588 / 10,941 / 11,414 / 13,012

Health care system

10

Ascension (St. John Health)

12,616 / 11,893 / 11,893 / 11,271 / 11,303 / 11,337 / 12,002 / 12,649 / 13,004 / 12,865 / 12,684 / 11,243 / 14,286

Health care system

11

U.S. Postal Service

10,900 / 11,805 / 9,694 / 9,685 / 9,856 / 9,666 / 9,666 / 10,922 / 11,110 / 12,200 / 12,800 / 15,701 / 15,385

Postal service

12

Detroit Medical Center

9,947 / 10,047 / 10,279 / 10,553 / 10,558 / 12,268 / 13,458 / 13,499 / 12,121 / 11,820 / 11,626 / 11,304 / 11,031

Health care system

13

City of Detroit

9,749 / 9,565 / 9,066 / 8,918 / 8,956 / 9,137 / 9,591 / 10,920 / 11,396 / 12,472 / 13,187 / 13,352 / 13,762

City government

14

State of Michigan

9,532 / 9,458 / 9,377 / 9,283 / 9,394 / 9,562 / 9,693 / 10,226 / 9,851 / 10,885 / 10,887 / 10,791 / 11,177

State government

15

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

7,431 / 7,266 / 7,265 / 7,110 / 6,918 / 6,664 / 6,023 / 5,924 / 6,141 / 6,191 / 7,206 / 7,321 / 7,007

Health care insurer

23

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

NO.

EMPLOYER

FULL TIME

EMPLOYEES

2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2016 / 2015 / 2014 / 2013 / 2012 / 2011 / 2010 / 2009 / 2008 / 2007

BUSINESS TYPE

16

DTE Energy

7,009 / 7,032 / 6,278 / 6,138 / 6,555 / 6,329 / 6,213 / 6,277 / 7,342 / 6,577 / 6,632 / 6,623 / 7,188

Energy and energy-technology

company

17

Ilitch Companies

6,680 / 6,740 / 9,191 / 9,040 / 9,003 / na / na / na / na / na / na / na / na

Food, Sports, Entertainment

18

Wayne State University

5,913 / 5,910 / 5,780 / 5,806 / 5,589 / 6,010 / 6,023 / 5,924 / 6,272 / 5,152 / 5,019 / 4,935 / 6,169

Public university

19

Detroit Public Schools

5,850 / 5,700 / 5,794 / 6,300 / 5,862 / 6,258 / 6,586 / 7,839 / 10,951 / 13,039 / 13,750 / 15,904 / 17,329

Public school system

20

McLaren Health Care Corp.

5,621 / 5,551 / 5,864 / 5,603 / 4,961 / na / na / na / na / na / na / na / na

Health care system

Source: Crain's Detroit Business, 2008/2009/2010/2011/2012/2013/2014/2015/2016/2017/2018/2019/2020 Book of List Editions.

ANNUAL AVERAGE UNEMPLOYMENT DATA -- FROM MESC

 YEAR

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

CLINTON

TOWNSHIP

12.6%

11.4%

10.9%

9.2%

6.7%

4.8%

4.0%

3.7%

3.8%

10.9%

5.3%

3.4%

3.2%

4.1%

MACOMB

COUNTY

10.9%

9.8%

9.4%

7.9%

5.8%

5.2%

4.4%

4.1%

4.2%

11.9%

5.8%

3.8%

3.5%

4.5%

MICHIGAN

10.0%

9.0%

8.7%

7.2%

5.4%

5.0%

4.6%

4.2%

4.1%

10.0%

5.7%

4.2%

3.9%

4.7%

24

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

Between the early 1990's and year end 2000, unemployment rates experienced a steady decrease

within Macomb County, Southeast Michigan, and the State of Michigan. Beginning in 2000, the

economy began a significant downturn. As a result, unemployment rates increased and remained

higher until peaking in 2009. In 2010 rates began a slow decline that has continued through 2019. 

During this time period rates remained above historical averages through about 2015. 

Unemployment rates once again spiked in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but have since

declined again.

In recent years the unemployment rates in Clinton Township are slightly lower than in Macomb

County and the State of Michigan overall.

INCOME LEVELS

The following table summarizes median household income data for Clinton Township, Roseville,

Macomb County, and the State of Michigan. Also in the table below, the 1999 median household

income figures have been adjusted to reflect equivalent figures for 2024 assuming an average annual

inflation rate of 2.4%. The column labeled 2024 ACS 1-Year Est., represents the best available

current estimate by the US Census Bureau. The column titled ‘Difference’ reflects the change in

median household income levels taking into account inflation at 2.4% over 25 years. As shown, in

25

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

most instances median household income levels have not kept up with inflation over the past

couple decades on both a local and state level. Those instances where median household income

level have kept up or outpaced inflation are typically in affluent communities with pre-existing above

average housing income levels. Median household income levels in Clinton Township has not kept

up with inflation over the past couple decades. The State of Michigan has on average not kept pace

with inflation. The trend in Macomb County overall was worse than in the State of Michigan

overall.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS

1999

If Inflation

Adjusted to

2024, 2.4%

annually

2024 ACS

Est.

Difference

CLINTON TWP.

$50,067

$90,584

$71,658

($18,926)

ROSEVILLE

$41,220

$74,577

$62,182

($12,395)

FRASER

$50,339

$91,076

$64,354

($26,722)

MACOMB COUNTY

$52,102

$94,266

$77,702

($16,564)

MICHIGAN

$44,667

$80,814

$72,389

($8,425)

Comparison of the 1999 median household income levels with the 2024 ACS estimates indicates that

income levels on average in the State of Michigan tended to grow at closer to 1.9% over the time

period analyzed. In Clinton Township they have grown at closer to 1.4%, which is lower than

typical. In Macomb County they grew at closer to 1.6%. The inability to maintain an income growth

equal to or greater than the concurrent rate of inflation is a reflection of a declining purchasing

power.

TRAFFIC COUNTS:

As a retail property, an important aspect of the property’s utility is its exposure, which can be

indirectly gauged through traffic counts. Below are the most recent available traffic counts as

indicated by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

26

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS (MDOT)

Year

Groesbeck Highway,

N of 15 Mile Road

Groesbeck Highway,

N of 14 Mile Road

Gratiot Avenue, N of

14 Mile Road

2025

27,164

26,756

53,536

2024

26,620

26,649

49,867

2023

29,030

24,674

49,817

The traffic counts presented were the nearest to the subject available. The traffic counts along

Groesbeck Highway north of 15 Mile Road and north of 14 Mile Road were both similar. Both show

significant traffic counts. That said, the traffic counts along Groesbeck Highway are nearly half of

that found along Gratiot Avenue just over 1 mile east.

NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION

The subject neighborhood is loosely defined as a small commercial node centered around the

intersection of Groesbeck Highway and 15 Mile Road, in Clinton Charter Township. The

neighborhood is generally level and near road grade. All utilities are available in the neighborhood. 

There is some minimal vacant land in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is located in the Fraser

Public Schools district. The subject is the largest building improvement in the neighborhood as

described however there are some large industrial uses located just outside the neighborhood.

Groesbeck Highway is a major corridor built during the early 1900s. The Clinton Township

planning department states “The Township has targeted Groesbeck as a reinvestment opportunity

to address the many vacant industrial and commercial properties that line the corridor.” The

Township planning department also states “Currently, Groesbeck lacks cohesiveness, walkability,

and aesthetic value.

There has not been any new development in the subject’s neighborhood over the past decade. In

terms of stages of development the subject’s neighborhood is in a state of decline.

Development to the north and south of the subject neighborhood is generally industrial. There is a

large industrial park to the west of the subject neighborhood. Development to the east includes

single and multiple-family residential. The existing uses found in the subject’s neighborhood as

outlined below from south to north.

27

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

 •

KFC

 •

Taco Bell

 •

subject (vacant)

 •

Burger King

 •

Harbor Freight

 •

Walgreens

 •

Mobil gas station

 •

Wendy’s

 •

BP gas station

 •

Tuffy Auto Service Center

 •

All Dental, dental offices

 •

Captain D’s restaurant

An aerial exhibit of the subject neighborhood is presented on the following page with the

neighborhood outlined in yellow, and the subject outlined in red.

28

GENERAL AREA, CITY, & NEIGHBORHOOD DATA, Continued

SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD - GROESBECK HWY / 15 MILE ROAD, CLINTON TWP

29

ZONING

The subject property is primarily zoned B-3, General Business. Rules and regulations pertaining to

this classification are contained in the Clinton Township Zoning Ordinance.

According to the Ordinance, the intent of the B-3, General Business district is as follows.

“The B-3 General Business District is characterized by more diversified business

uses that are often located so as to serve the passersby, which uses would often be

incompatible with pedestrian movement in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District

or B-2 Community Business District.”

The following are identified as Principal Uses Permitted in the B-3 district.

 (a)

Office buildings.

 (b)

Medical offices, including clinics only for human care.

 (c)

Banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, loan companies, insurance offices, real

estate offices and similar uses.

 (d)

Drive-in or drive-through facilities, when accessory or incidental to the above uses.

 (e)

Commercial television and radio towers accessory to uses permitted in this section.

 (f)

Funeral homes.

 (g)

Child care centers.

 (h)

Publicly-owned buildings, public utility buildings, telephone exchange buildings and repeater

stations, electric transformer stations and substations, and gas regulator stations (without

storage yards).

 (i)

Schools, operated for profit, for the training or instruction of non-academic subjects such as,

but not limited to, dance, music, martial arts and similar artistic or athletic pursuits.

 (j)

Business or professional schools, operated for profit.

 (k)

Business schools or private schools operated for profit.

 (l)

Catering or banquet halls.

 (m)

Private or public athletic clubs, health spas or figure salons.

 (n)

Veterinary clinics and hospitals, including facilities for overnight keeping of animals.

 (o)

Restaurants or other similar places serving food or beverages, excluding catering and banquet

halls and drive-in/drive-through fast-food restaurants.

(Ord. 260-A-292. Passed 8-18-97.)

(Ord. 260-A-415. Passed 12-5-05.)

 (p)

Dry cleaning establishments or pick-up stations dealing directly with the consumer.

 (q)

Florists and card and gift shops.

 (r)

Carry-out restaurants.

 (s)

Publicly-owned buildings, public utility buildings, telephone exchange buildings and repeater

stations, electric transfer stations and substations, gas regulator stations with service yards,

but without storage yards, and water and sewer pumping stations, when operation

30

ZONING, Continued

requirements necessitate the locating of said buildings within the District in order to serve

the immediate vicinity. The Planning Commission and the Township Board may require

walls and landscaping in order to screen such uses where they deem the same to be

necessary.

 (t)

All retail businesses and service establishments.

 (u)

An open-air business.

 (v)

Automotive service center.

 (w)

Printing and publishing establishments.

 (x)

Body Art Studios

 (y)

Business schools or private schools operated for profit.

 (z)

Catering or banquet halls.

 (aa) Home modernization sales, residential garage sales and swimming pool sales, excluding

manufacturing and processing facilities and outdoor storage.

 (bb) Lawn and garden supply sales, including an accessory outdoor sales area, provided such

outdoor sales area is completely fenced and obscured from public view.

 (cc) Accessory or ancillary oil and gas well or use structures.

 (dd) Hotels or motels.

 (ee) Churches.

 (ff)

Billiard halls, coin and/or token-operated amusement arcades, nightclubs and skating rinks.

 (gg) Auto wash rack or motor vehicle laundry.,

 (hh) New vehicle sales showrooms and service facilities.

 (ii)

Bus passenger stations.

 (jj)

Massage parlors, subject to the following: The use shall comply with Chapter 850 of these

Codified Ordinances.

 (kk) Other uses similar to the above.

 (ll)

Accessory uses customarily associated with an above permitted principal use..

 (mm) Festivals. These shall meet the conditions set forth in Chapter 1293.

 (nn) Intermodal Transportation Facility.

 (oo) Internet Sales Establishments.

The next section lists some required conditions in the B-3 district. They are as follows.

 (a)

All business establishments shall be retail or service establishments dealing solely with

consumers. All goods produced on the premises shall be sold at retail on the premises where

produced.

 (b)

All business, servicing or processing, except for off-street parking or loading, and those uses

otherwise permitted in this chapter, shall be conducted within a completely enclosed

building.

 (c)

The outdoor storage of goods or materials shall be prohibited irrespective of whether or not

they are for sale, unless otherwise permitted in this District.

31

ZONING, Continued

(Ord. 260-A-58. Passed 8-22-83.)

In addition, the following uses are permitted subject to special approval.

 (a)

Adult foster care homes, subject to the conditions in 1293.01 (a) (4).

 (b)

Commercial outdoor recreation, subject to the conditions in 1293.01 (a) (25).

 (c)

Automobile painting, bumping and welding shops, subject to the conditions in 1293.01 (a)

(10).

 (d)

Open outdoor sales which are accessory to a principal permitted use.

 (e)

Automotive service stations or other facilities dispensing gasoline on a retail basis, subject

to the conditions in 1293.01 (a) (11).

 (f)

Fast-food restaurants with drive-thrus, subject to the conditions in 1293.01 (a) (27).

 (g)

Open-air business uses, including outdoor space for the sale or rental of automobiles,

agricultural implements, boats or manufactured homes, subject to the conditions in 1293.01

(a) (44).

(Ord. 260-A-58. Passed 8-22-83; Ord. 260-A-217. Passed 5-13-91; Ord. 260-A-221. Passed

1-20-92; Ord. 260-A-249. Passed 8-22-94.)

 (h)

Commercial television and radio broadcasting towers and cellular telephone antennae,

subject to the conditions in 1293.01 (a) (71).

(Ord. 260-A-277. Passed 9-30-96.)

 (i)

Recreational vehicle storage facilities, subject to the conditions in 1293.01 (a) (55).

(Ord. 260-A-361. Passed 1-28-02.)

 (j)

Private clubs and/or lodge halls, subject to the conditions in 1293.01 (a) (50).

 (k)

Adult use businesses, pawnbrokers, payday advance/check-cashing businesses, resale shops,

second-hand dealers, gold sell/buy businesses, precious gems and metals sell/buy businesses,

used goods businesses, and other similar uses to the above, subject to the conditions in

1293.01 (a) (5)..

(Ord. 260-A-438. Passed 10-6-08; Ord. 260-A-440. Passed 7-13-09.)

(Ord. 260-A-58. Passed 8-22-83; Ord. 260-A-80. Passed 11-13-84; Ord. 260-A-217. Passed

5-13-91; Ord. 260-A-221. Passed 1-20-92; Ord. 260-A-277. Passed 9-30-96; Ord. 260-A-

314. Passed 8-10-98; Ord. 260-A-361. Passed 1-28-02; Ord. 260-A-399. Passed 10-4-04;

Ord. 260-A-454. Passed 1-11-16.)

The following table presents the area, height, bulk and placement requirements as they pertain to the

zoning classification present on the subject.

32

ZONING, Continued

Schedule of Regulations

Category

B-3

Required Setback

 Minimum Front

 Minimum Side

 Minimum Rear

25 feet

10 feet

10 feet

Maximum Height

35 feet, additional height may be

permitted

The subject improvement is believed to represent a legal conforming use of the property.

It is noted that self-storage is not a permitted use or a special approval use in the B-3 zoning

classification. Management of the subject also indicated that self-storage was not being

permitted on the subject property. This is important because the limited interest in the subject

from prospective occupants has largely come from self-storage developers.

33

ZONING, Continued

34

ZONING, Continued 

( 

Roseville 

eel)s 

ea. oy 11.70% 

[WA 

5.1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (15,000 5G FT) sii 

Wi MOBILE HOME PARK 

A 

13 TECHNCAL RESEARCH 

| R-2 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 

(12,000 5G FT) il OS-1 OFFICE/SERVICE 

(LOW RSE) wig 1-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL 

| R-3ONEFAMILY RESIENTIAL (9.600 

SO FT) 

wif OS-2 OFFICE/SERVICE 

(WO RISE) 

wii 1-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL 

© R-4 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 

(6,400 SO FT) lif 05-3 OFFICE/SERVICE 

(HIGH RISE) wii P PARKING 

R-5 ONE FAWLY RESIDENTIAL (7,800 

SO FT] 

wii 8-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS 

wii SP) SPECIAL PURPOSE (NURSING 

HOMES) 

| RMU MULTIPLE PAY RESIDENTIAL (OW #156) 

5.2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS 

ull SP-2 SPECIAL PURPOSE (HOSPITALS) 

© BMH MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HIGH RISE) wif 5.3 GENERAL BUSINESS 

WBE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 

RT TWO FAY RESIDENTIAL 

ag 5. REGIONAL BUSES 

Fw FOODWAY 

I 

7 

x 

I 

St Clair Shores 

£2 Groesbeck Overlay District 

Charter Township of Clinton 

Zoning Map 

34 

N= 

CLINTON 

TOWNSHIP

ASSESSED VALUATION & TAXES

The subject is located in the Clinton Charter Township, Macomb County, in the Fraser Public

Schools district. Real estate taxes are billed twice annually with the community, once in July and

again in December. For identification and tax purposes, the subject’s tax identification number is

as follows:

16-11-33-126-006

Real property taxes in the State of Michigan are generally predicated on 50% of true cash value (i.e.,

market value set by the assessor), but are calculated based on taxable value which due to statutory

limitations may be less than 50% of True Cash Value (TCV). Local property assessments are subject

to review by their respective board of equalization, which through appropriate factors, attempts to

make assessing practices more uniform throughout the region. In addition, the equalization

procedure in each community is subject to further review by a State Equalization Board. Pertaining

to property taxes in the State of Michigan, the following definitions apply:

 Assessed Value (AV):

50% of the property’s cash value (i.e., theoretically equivalent to

a property’s market value) as determined by the assessor.

 Taxable Value (TV):

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), for taxes levied in

1995 and for each year after 1995, the taxable value of each parcel

of property is the lesser of the following:

 (a) The property's taxable value in the immediately preceding

year minus any losses, multiplied by the lesser of 1.05 or the

inflation rate, plus all additions. For taxes levied in 1995, the

property's taxable value in the immediately preceding year is the

property's state equalized valuation in 1994.

 (b) The property's current state equalized valuation.

Upon a transfer of ownership of property after 1994, the

property’s taxable value for the calendar year following the year

of the transfer is the property’s state equalized valuation for the

calendar year following the transfer.

 Millage Rate:

The total levy, stated in terms of dollars per $1,000 of taxable

value. Non principal residence exemption millage applies for non-

owner occupied residential properties (rentals, etc.), agricultural

lands without an agricultural exemption, and commercial

properties. The non principal residence exemption millage in the

Fraser Public Schools district in this area of Clinton Charter

Township has increased over the past couple decades but has

remained relatively level since. The millage rates for tax-years

35

ASSESSED VALUATION & TAXES, Continued

2023 through 2025 are 58.5266, 58.4871, and 58.3747. A graph

below illustrates the trend in millage rates since 2005. Clinton

Charter Township does not charge an administration fee for the

collection of taxes.

The subject's recent assessment and tax history is presented in the tables below.

16-11-33-126-006

YEAR

2023

2024

2025

True Cash Value

$3,038,400

$3,294,600

$3,419,000

Assessed Value

$1,519,200

$1,647,300

$1,709,500

Taxable Value

$1,083,227

$1,137,388

$1,082,550

Millage Rate

58.5266

58.4871

58.3747

Total Tax Billing

$63,398

$66,523

$63,194

36

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION:

Land or site descriptions are used as a basis for analyzing comparable sales as well as for allocating

values between the land and improvements. Furthermore, this analysis forms a foundation for

determining the property's highest and best use. The description of the site lays the groundwork for

analyzing the physically possible uses of the site. Factors including the size, configuration and

topography of a parcel can affect the uses which can be developed on a site. In addition, certain uses

may not be possible if public utilities and soil conditions restrict the development of the parcel.

The following pages summarize the details of the subject site. A site sketch is provided at the end

of this section of the appraisal report.

SITE SIZE:

12.084± acres

ROAD FRONTAGE:

The parcel has 880 feet of frontage along the east side of Groesbeck

Highway.

SHAPE/DIMENSIONS:

The reader is advised to view sketches of the subject parcels included

in the Photographs and Sketches section of this report for a clear

visual understanding of the property’s shape.

The parcel is slightly irregular but functional in shape. The width of

the parcel measured from the Groesbeck Highway frontage ranges

from about 880 to a little over 1,000 feet. The depth of the parcel

varies from 500 feet to a maximum of about 650 feet.

STREET TYPE/SIZE:

Groesbeck Highway (M-97) is a 5-lane State highway that extends in

a northeast / southwest direction between the City of Detroit and Mt

Clemens. Groesbeck Highway runs parallel with a railroad corridor

just to the west. Development along Groesbeck Highway is

predominantly industrial with some commercial in small clusters.

ACCESS:

Access to the subject is available from its Groesbeck Highway

frontage.

VISIBILITY:

Adequate.

TOPOGRAPHY:

The site is generally level.

DRAINAGE:

Management reported that some catch basins has recently been

repaired at a cost of around $15,000. A catch basin at the rear of the

37

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY, Continued

building was observed to be caving. That said, there were no major

drainage issues reported on the site.

WETLANDS:

There does not appear to be any areas of wetlands on the subject site. 

That said, the appraisers are not experts in wetlands identification.

FLOOD ZONE:

The appraised real estate is not located within a designated 100-year

flood plain. According to FEMA’s web site, the subject site is found

on FEMA Map # 26099C0341G, dated September 29, 2006.

UTILITIES:

All available.

EASEMENTS:

Typical easement for utilities are present along the road frontage. To

the best of my knowledge there are no easements on the subject that

are known to negatively impact the property.

SOIL CONDITIONS:

Soil conditions appear to be adequate. This is supported by the

existing development.

ENCROACHMENTS:

None known.

SITE IMPROVEMENTS:

In addition to the buildings, the appraised real property includes the

following site improvements.

• Asphalt paved driveways and parking areas. The asphalt paving

has lost the majority of its striping and has areas of moderate to

major deterioration. Some of the catch basins in the front parking

area had been repaired in 2026, but would have needed repair as of

the date of valuation. One of the catch basins behind the building

was collapsing with the surrounding asphalt sinking in as well.

• Concrete truckwell, walkway in front of the store, and likely

former outdoor fenced garden sales area.

• Lighting fixtures in the parking areas. The concrete pylons for the

light fixtures are weathered and some of the light poles were missing.

• Very minimal landscaping. The landscaping includes grass strip

along the roadway, and a triangular grassy area to the rear of the

building.

• Monument sign along Groesbeck Highway. The monument sign

and its supporting concrete pylons are significantly weathered.

ENVIRONMENTAL

38

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY, Continued

 HAZARDS: 

As it relates to the underlying land there was no environmental

conditions known or disclosed.

Nevertheless, the value estimate is predicated on the assumption that

any presence of pollutants on the subject does not materially cause a

loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions, or

for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover and

evaluate them.

FUNCTIONAL UTILITY:

The site is large enough to accommodate a large development.

BUILDING DESCRIPTION:

The complete description of the building improvements relates to highest and best use analysis as

well as the approaches to value. In determining highest and best use, the building description assists

in indicating whether or not the subject improvements conform to the highest and best use of the land

as if vacant. If not, other uses of the site may likely need to be identified. Secondly, a complete

building description addresses the functional utility of the improvements. The analysis of the

subject's utility helps lay a basis for determining functional obsolescence which may be used within

the approaches to value. Finally, the analysis of the subject's physical condition assists in estimating

physical deterioration in the cost approach, adjustments for condition in the sales comparison

approach, and income and expense estimates in the income capitalization approach.

ADDRESS:

34800 Groesbeck Highway, Clinton Township, Michigan

PROPERTY TYPE:

A subject is big box commercial building.

TENANCY:

The subject was vacant as of the date of valuation, as well as during

inspection. The property is believed to have been vacant since

around 2016.

BUILDING SIZE:

113,950± square feet

LAND TO BUILDING RATIO:

4.62± to 1.0.

STORIES:

The building is 1-story but has some mezzanine built out with offices

in the interior. The mezzanine space was in very poor condition.

YEAR BUILT:

The building was originally constructed in 1970.

39

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY, Continued

FOUNDATION:

Presumed to be not less than 42 inch poured concrete.

CONSTRUCTION:

The building is steel framed with masonry walls.

ROOF:

The roof of the building is flat and primarily composed of a built-up

membrane. As of the date of valuation the roof was in poor

condition. Ownership received a quote to repair and restore the roof

in November 2024. This work was subsequently completed in 2025. 

The cost to repair and restore the roof was $450,000. There was

substantial past water infiltration evident at the time of inspection.

EXTERIOR WALLS:

The exterior walls consist of concrete block and brick. The front

facing exposure is brick. The paint on the exterior concrete block

was faded and peeling in several places.

LAYOUT:

The building has a front glass enclosed vestibule that has been sealed. 

Much of the glass in the vestibule has been vandalized. There is

another customer entrance along the south exposure. The interior

includes a large open floor plan with barrier wall to the rear

segregating the stock, shipping / receiving, and other employee areas. 

There is some mezzanine built out with office / employee break

space.

INTERIOR FINISH:

The large open area is finished with acoustic ceiling tiles in a grid

pattern, some drywall, and older square vinyl tiles. There is

some finishing in the employee spaces as well. There was mold

evident throughout the building in the drywall and acoustic

ceiling tiles. At the very least the interior finishing would require

removal in order for occupancy to occur. An extraordinary

assumption has been made in this report that the environmental

conditions present in the building can be mitigated. The old

vinyl floor tiles also appear to have been impacted by water

infiltration. Several areas were observed to be peeling up with

loose, missing and cracked pieces. A quote was received by

ownership to remove the vinyl tile, drywall and other interior

finish impacted by mold. The quote was from RT Services &

Management and is dated August 31, 2026. The cost of this work

was quoted at $299,000.

Management indicated that kids have broken into the building in the

past. Vandalism of some of the glass on the interior was observed at

40

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY, Continued

the time of inspection.

AMENITIES:

There is an inground truckwell at the rear of the building. In the very

least the truckwell is in need of cleaning. There are a few bay doors

at the rear and south side of the building, although several had been

boarded up.

ELECTRICAL:

Adequate.

HEATING/AC:

Adequate.

CONDITION:

The property was observed to be in poor condition overall.

FUNCTIONAL UTILITY:

There is functional obsolescence present related to the size of the

improvement and limited number of potential users for such a large

space.

41

VIEW OF THE SUBJECT FACING EAST. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

VIEW OF THE SUBJECT FACING SOUTH.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

42

SIDE VIEW OF SUBJECT FACING SOUTHWEST. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

REAR VIEW OF SUBJECT FACING SOUTHWEST.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

43

VIEW OF THE IN-GROUND TRUCKWELL. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

VIEW OF BAY DOOR AT TRUCKWELL.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

44

REAR VIEW OF SUBJECT FACING NORTH. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

VIEW OF CATCH BASIN AT REAR OF SUBJECT.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

45

VIEW OF THE SUBJECT FACING NORTH. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

SIDE VIEW OF SUBJECT FACING NORTH.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

46

VIEW OF MAIN ENTRANCE TO SUBJECT. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

VIEW OF LIGHT FIXTURE PYLON IN THE PARKING LOT.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

47

INTERIOR VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

INTERIOR VIEW OF THE SUBJECT.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

48

VIEW OF THE CEILING TILES. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

CLOSE UP VIEW OF CEILING TILES.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

49

VIEW OF WATER MARKS ON THE FLOOR. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

VIEW TOWARDS THE REAR EMPLOYEE AREA.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

50

VIEW OF MOLD IN THE DRYWALL. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

VIEW OF REAR SHIPPING / RECEIVING SPACE.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

51

VIEW OF MEZZANINE OFFICE SPACE. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

VIEW OF WATER INFILTRATION IN THE MEZZANINE OFFICE.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

52

VIEW OF MOLD INFILTRATION IN THE MEZZANINE OFFICE. TAKEN 8-17-2026.

VIEW OF THE FLOOR TILES. TAKEN BY BRANDON L. ELLIS, MAI.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

53

VIEW OF VANDALISM IN THE INTERIOR. TAKEN 8-17-2026 BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

INTERIOR VIEW OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE VESTIBULE.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

54

STREET VIEW FACING NORTH ALONG GROESBECK HWY. TAKEN 8-17-2026.

STREET VIEW FACING SOUTH ALONG GROESBECK HWY. TAKEN BY B. ELLIS, MAI.

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

55

SUBJECT PHOTOS & SKETCHES (County Aerial)

56

SUBJECT PHOTOS & SKETCHES (Location Map)

57

SUBJECT PHOTOS & SKETCHES (Future Land Use)

58

SUBJECT PHOTOS & SKETCHES (Future Land Use) 

Future Land Use 

58 

| Multiple Family Residential 

B= Office 

Future Land Use 

"| single Family Residential 

FUTURE LAND USE 

| Commercial 

I Industrial 

Clinton Township, MI 

I Public/Quasi Public 

I Parks and Open Space 

I Redevelopment Corridor 

March, 2019 

Carlsle/Wortman Associates, Inc 

Ann Arbor, Michigan

SUBJECT PHOTOS & SKETCHES (Subject Sketch)

59

HAZARDOUS WASTE OR PROPERTY CONTAMINATION

Value Trends has inquired as to whether there is any hazardous waste or property contamination

impacting the subject site. At this point, the response has been that there is no known contamination

on the subject site. At the time of inspection I observed mold growing throughout the building on

drywall and ceiling tiles. The mold was black in color. I also observed an older type square vinyl

floor tile in several places in the building. The floor tile was peeling up, cracking and loose in

places. I’m aware that some floor tiles of this type can contain asbestos. That said I am not an

expert in the identification of environmental conditions such as mold and asbestos. Management

further indicated they were not aware of asbestos present in the building, and they were unaware of

the specific type of mold present in the interior finish.

The presence of substances such as toxins, asbestos, ureaformaldehyde foam insulation, or other

hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate provided is predicated

on the assumption that removal of the affected interior finish will mitigate any environmental

conditions present. No responsibility is assumed for any such condition, or for any expertise or

engineering knowledge required to discover any environmental conditions present in the building. 

The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. Should a determination be made at a

latter date that any presence of environmental contaminants in the building cannot be mitigated, this

issue must be addressed at that time as to how it relates to the value of the subject property.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. The intent of this

act is to give civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to

individuals on the basis of race, sex, national origin, age and religion. It guarantees equal

opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation,

state and local government services and telecommunications. Included among the tenants are

provisions for various facilities to provide barrier free design. I (we) have not made a specific

compliance survey and analysis of the property to determine to what extent the building does not

conform with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. For purpose of this valuation, an

ordinary assumption is made that no additional modifications are necessary to adhere to the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

60

PART THREE:

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND VALUE CONCLUSIONS

PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY

The real property that is the subject of this appraisal pertains a 12.084± acres site improved with a

big box commercial building containing 113,950± square feet. The subject was vacant as of the date

of valuation and being marketing for lease.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE

Highest and best use as presented in The Appraisal of Real Estate, 15th edition is defined as:4

The reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value.

To be reasonably probable, traditionally a use must meet certain conditions:

 •

The use must be physically possible (or it is reasonably probable to render it so).

 •

The use must be legally permissible (or it is reasonable probable to render it so).

 •

The use must be financially feasible

The four criteria that highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, 

financial feasibility, and maximum profitability. These criteria are usually considered sequentially. 

A use may be financially feasible, but this is irrelevant if it is physically impossible or legally

prohibited. Only when there is a reasonable possibility that one of the prior, unacceptable conditions

can be changed is it appropriate to proceed with the analysis of that use. Provided below are brief

descriptions as to each criteria.

Legally permissible use

Private deed restrictions, zoning ordinances, building codes, historical district controls, rent controls,

and environmental regulations must be explored because they may preclude many potential highest

and best uses. Further, long term and land leases can also affect a property's highest and best use.

Physically possible use

The size, configuration, and topography of a site affect the uses which may be developed on that

parcel. Irregular shaped parcels may cost more to develop and may have less utility than similar

sized regular shaped parcels. In addition, availability of utilities and their capacities are also

important considerations in determining possible uses. Also under this criterion is the site's

 4 Page 305.

62

HIGHEST AND BEST USE, Continued

topography, soil, and subsoil conditions. The cost of additional grading, foundations, and footings

may be higher for a subject than those costs at typical sites in the area. These additional construction

costs may render a site economically unusable.

Financially feasible use

 

Uses that meet the first two criterion are analyzed further to determine which ones are likely to

produce income, or return, equal to or greater than the amount needed to satisfy operating expenses,

financial obligations, and capital amortization. All uses that are expected to produce a positive

return are regarded as financially feasible.

Maximally productive use

 

Of the financially feasible uses, the use that produces the highest price, or value, consistent with the

rate of return warranted by the market for that use is the highest and best use. To determine the

highest and best use of land as though vacant, the same rate of return is often used to capitalize

income streams from different uses into their respective values. This procedure is appropriate if all

competing uses have similar risk characteristics. The use that provides the highest value is the

highest and best use.

An analysis as to Highest and Best Use for a property is made both “as vacant” and “as improved”. 

In some instances, the results may be different. The first discussion provided below pertains to the

subject’s highest and best use “as vacant”.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE "AS VACANT" 

There are two underlying reasons for analyzing the highest and best use of the subject "as vacant". 

The first reason is to define if the land is, or was, vacant, what use should be made of it. This

determination allows the appraiser to determine the criteria for selecting the comparable sales to be

used in estimating the value of the site. The second reason assists in determining what type of

building or other improvements, if any, should be constructed on the land and when. The following

section discusses the four tests of highest and best use as vacant.

Legally, the subject property is zoned B-3, General Business. The rules and regulations pertaining

to this zoning classification were presented in the Zoning section of this report. The uses permitted

include various retail, office and service uses. Self storage is not a permitted use in the B-3 zoning

district.

Groesbeck Highway is a major corridor built during the early 1900s. The Clinton Township

planning department states “The Township has targeted Groesbeck as a reinvestment opportunity

63

HIGHEST AND BEST USE, Continued

to address the many vacant industrial and commercial properties that line the corridor.” The

Township planning department also states “Currently, Groesbeck lacks cohesiveness, walkability,

and aesthetic value. The Groesbeck Highway Corridor Plan & Market Study serves as a tool to

address these issues and improve the corridor with missing elements that will make it more

attractive, unified, and walkable.” The Groesbeck Highway Corridor Plan & Market Study

specifically identifies the subject and addresses that portion of the corridor as the Kmart Node. The

Study states that the subject “represents an ideal opportunity for redevelopment into a mixed-use,

catalytic project that could spur additional reinvestment along the corridor.”

Physically the subject contains 12.084± acres and is large enough to support a large sized

development. The parcel has 880 feet of frontage along Groesbeck Highway and extends to a depth

ranging from about 500 to 650 feet. The parcel is visible for a moment when crossing Groesbeck

Highway along 15 Mile Road. Neighboring uses are residential to the east, industrial and

commercial to the south and west, and commercial to the north.

From a financial feasibility perspective there has not been any new development in the subject’s

neighborhood over the past decade. However if the subject were vacant it is still likely there would

be some interest in the property. As a result, the conclusion was reached that the highest and best

use of the subject “as vacant” is for general commercial development consistent with existing

zoning.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE "AS IMPROVED"

The highest and best use of the subject "as improved" is determined for two reasons. The first reason

is to identify the use that will produce the highest return of the subject. This involves testing five

alternatives: making no changes to the subject, remodeling the subject, renovating the building,

conversion to another use, or demolishing the improvements. The second reason is to help in

identifying comparable properties to be used in the approaches to value.

The subject is improved with a vacant big box commercial building containing 113,950± square feet. 

The building was originally constructed in 1970. The property is in poor condition overall due to

a number of factors. These factors include the condition of the parking lot and other site

improvements, the condition of the roof, and the condition of the interior. Substantial renovation

is necessary to get the property even in a preliminary state of readiness for occupancy. The capital

expenditure necessary to address the items above are as follows.

$ 450,000 - Repair & Restore the Roof

$ 755,000 - Parking Lot Refinish & Striping (adjusted to year-end 2024)

$ 286,000 - Removed Existing Interior Finish (adjusted to year-end 2024)

$1,491,000 - Total Preliminary Expenditure

64

HIGHEST AND BEST USE, Continued

The capital expenditure necessary to the parking lot and removal of the interior finish has been based

on the actual quotes received for this work, but adjusted to year-end 2024 to reflect inflation. The

inflation figure was obtained from Marshall Valuation Service.

The costs indicated above are shown as preliminary because it is likely there would be additional

cost necessary to build out the space to fit the occupant. These cost also do not include any cosmetic

renovation to the building exterior.

According to management of the subject there has not been much of any interest in the subject

property for redevelopment. Furthermore, median household income levels in the area are below

the County average. Management has indicated that most of the interest in the subject has come

from self-storage developers. However, self-storage is not a permitted use in the subject’s zoning

district. I spoke with Matt Wallace AICP, Assistant Director with the Clinton Charter Township

Planning & Community Development Department about self-storage use on the subject site. He

confirmed self-storage is no longer permitted in the subject’s commercial zoning or on any parcels

adjustment to residential zoning.

The prospect of a gym is a potential for the subject, but that type of use would typically only need

a fraction of the subject’s total building area. That would require partitioning the building and

finding another tenant, or tenants, to occupy the remainder.

While on inspection with management a vehicle drove up inquiring about the property for bin store

use.

The question must be considered whether the existing building contributes value beyond that of the

underlying land. As a result both a land valuation and value of the property as improved has been

applied. Based on this analysis the conclusion was reached that the improvement contributes value

beyond that of the underlying land.

Based on the above, the highest and best use of the subject has been concluded as general

commercial use.

65

LAND VALUATION

There are six basic methodologies by which vacant land can be valued. These techniques are known

as (1) direct sales comparison; (2) subdivision development procedure; (3) allocation; (4) extraction;

(5) land residual technique; and (6) ground rent capitalization. The most common methodology for

valuing vacant land is the direct sales comparison approach. This technique also happens to be the

preferred technique when adequate data is available. Its underlying premise is based upon the

principle of substitution. This principal reflects that an assumption can be made that a purchaser,

either investor or user, would consider the acquisition of another property as an acceptable

alternative to the purchase of a subject. In utilizing the principle of substitution, the appraiser

implies buyers are not justified in paying, nor can a seller expect to receive, a price which exceeds

the level at which an equally desirable substitute property can be acquired for in the open

marketplace.

In applying the sales comparison approach, an appraiser follows a systematic procedure. The

appraiser must also compare like with like. That is, the appraiser must adjust each comparable to

the subject to impute an indicated value to the subject property. The steps of the procedure are as

follows:

Research the market to obtain information about transactions, listings, and other

offerings of properties similar to the subject property.

Verify the information by considering whether the:

- Data obtained are factually accurate.

- Transactions reflect arm's-length market considerations. An appraiser verifies

information by consulting a knowledgeable source, usually one of the participants

in the transaction.

Determine relevant units of comparison (e.g., acre, square foot, multiplier), and

develop a comparative analysis for each unit.

Compare the subject and comparable sales according to the elements of comparison

and adjust the sale price of each comparable as appropriate or eliminate the

property as a comparable.

Reconcile the multiple value indications that result from the comparables into a

single value indication.

A search for comparable land sales in the local area was conducted. There has been limited activity

in the local area and so the search was expanded to other areas. Based on this search an adequate

amount of data was obtained. A total of five (5) comparable land sales have been written up and

presented in the following pages.

66

LAND VALUATION, Continued

67

LAND VALUATION, Continued 

21 Mile Rd 

¥ 

PY PIWED 

CLINTON 

{/ 

TOWNSHIP 

| 

(© Comparable 

“Reg pif 

; 

¥ 

£3 Mis Rd 

2 

WARREN 

E 13 Mis RS 

f 

Warren 

COMPARABLE 

DISON 

J 1 ro 

{ 

: 

wie 18 

LAND SALES 

| 

= 

67

COMPARABLE LAND LISTING NO. 1

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION:

ADDRESS:

37217 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the southwest side of Utica Road, just

north of 16 Mile Road (Metropolitan Parkway).

PARCEL #(s):

10-10-24-479-004

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

SITE SIZE:

13.756± acres

FRONTAGE:

The parcel has 1,031 feet of frontage along Utica Road.

DIMENSIONS:

The parcel is wedge shaped and extends to a variable depth of

68

COMPARABLE LAND LISTING NO. 1, continued

between 362 to 977 feet from Utica Road. The parcel has a width of

about 873 feet.

ZONING:

C-3, General Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

TOPOGRAPHY:

The parcel is wooded and slightly rolling down towards the south. 

The Clinton River is located just to the southeast of the property. A

smaller stream that connects with the Clinton River is located just

south of the subject.

IMPROVEMENTS:

None.

INTENDED USE:

The property was listed as a C-3 zoning parcel at the intersection of

Utica and Hayes Roads. The listing states proposed uses of multi-

family / retail.

LISTING DATA:

DATE OF LISTING:

The property was listed in 2024.

LISTING PRICE:

$1,300,000

TERMS:

Arms length.

SELLER:

Joseph D’Angelo & Evestco, LLC

VERIFICATION:

Thomas A. Duke listing brokerage flyer; Public records

UNIT RATE:

$2.17± psf, listing

COMMENTS:

The property did eventually sell to the Six Rivers Land Conservancy

in March of 2026. The purchaser’s intent was to retain the land in its

natural state. The purchase price was $770,000, or $1.29± psf.

69

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 2

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION:

ADDRESS:

33855 Mound Road, Sterling Heights, MI

LOCATION:

The property is located at the southwest corner of Mound Road and

local street Northlawn Drive. This located is north of 14 Mile Road.

PARCEL #:

10-10-32-427-040

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

SITE SIZE:

2.604± acres

FRONTAGE:

The parcel has over 200 feet of frontage along the west side of

Mound Road and approximately 315 feet along the south side of

Northlawn Drive.

70

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 2, continued

DIMENSIONS:

The parcel is somewhat irregular in that its southern property line

follows the meandering of a creek. The parcel nevertheless has a

depth of 315 feet from Mound Road, and variable width north to

south ranging from 190± to 375± feet.

WETLANDS:

The southern property line extends into the Big Beaver Creek.

ZONING:

C-3, General Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

TOPOGRAPHY:

Generally level and near road grade, except those portions in the Big

Beaver Creek.

IMPROVEMENTS:

None.

INTENDED USE:

Unknown.

SALES DATA:

DATE OF SALE:

November 7, 2024

SALES PRICE:

$200,000

TERMS:

Arms length.

SELLER:

P.I.M.E. Inc.

PURCHASER:

Gym Properties, LLC

VERIFICATION:

Pilot Property Group listing flyer; Public records

UNIT RATE:

$1.76± psf

71

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 3

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION:

ADDRESS:

46200 & 46260 Gratiot Avenue, Chesterfield Township, MI

LOCATION:

The parcels are located on the east side of Gratiot Avenue, north of

Hall Road (M-59). They are separated by a local street known as

Kings Point.

PARCEL #(s):

15-09-31-151-006 & 15-09-31-151-007

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

SITE SIZE:

3.897± acres - Parcel -007

1.557± acres - Parcel -006

5.454± acres - Total

72

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 3, continued

FRONTAGE:

The parcels have about 241 feet of combined frontage along the east

side of Gratiot Avenue.

DIMENSIONS:

The parcels are slightly irregular but functional in shape. The extend

to a depth of roughly 400 feet.

WETLANDS:

Unknown.

ZONING:

The larger parcel containing 3.897± acres is zoned C-3, General

Commercial, while the smaller parcel containing 1.557± acres is

zoned R1C, One Family Residential.

UTILITIES:

All available.

TOPOGRAPHY:

Level and near road grade.

IMPROVEMENTS:

None.

INTENDED USE:

Unknown, but the purchaser is a Detroit based energy provider.

SALES DATA:

DATE OF SALE:

January 28, 2022

SALES PRICE:

$445,000

TERMS:

Arms length.

SELLER:

Paul Hicks, Trustee, and Raymond P. Seguin, Trustee

PURCHASER:

DTE Electric Company

VERIFICATION:

Public records

 

UNIT RATE:

$1.87± per square foot

73

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 4

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION:

LOCATION:

The property is located on the east side of Groesbeck Highway, the

north side of Elizabeth Lake Road, and the west side of North

Avenue, in Clinton Township, Michigan.

PARCEL #:

16-11-02-378-008

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

SITE SIZE:

21.456± acres

FRONTAGE:

The parcel has around 440 feet of frontage along the east side of

Groesbeck Highway, 27 feet of stub access from Elizabeth Road, and

around 88 feet along the west side of North Avenue.

74

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 4, continued

DIMENSIONS:

The parcel is irregular in shape but functional. It extended east / west

a maximum of about 1,400 feet, and north / south around 650 feet.

WETLANDS:

There is a little pond on the parcel. The pond appears to be just

under 1 acre in size.

ZONING:

B-2, Community Commercial; The property was subsequently

rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development.

UTILITIES:

All available.

TOPOGRAPHY:

Other than the pond the parcel is generally level and near road grade.

IMPROVEMENTS:

None.

INTENDED USE:

The property was acquired for a mixed use development consisting

of retail and residential use.

SALES DATA:

DATE OF SALE:

October 25, 2021

SALES PRICE:

$1,350,000

TERMS:

Arms length.

SELLER:

T C T Properties Group LLC

PURCHASER:

East Town Village, LLC

VERIFICATION:

Public records

UNIT RATE:

$1.44± psf

COMMENTS:

The developer broke ground in 2026.

75

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 5

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION:

LOCATION:

The property is located on the south side of Hall Road (M-59), west

of Card Road, and adjacent to C.J. Barrymore’s amusement center,

in Clinton Township, Michigan.

PARCEL #(s):

16-11-03-200-030

The parcel has since been split into 3 parcels.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

SITE SIZE:

8.924± acres

FRONTAGE:

The parcel has 397 feet of frontage along the south side of Hall Road

(M-59).

76

COMPARABLE LAND SALE NO. 5, continued

DIMENSIONS:

The parcel is rectangular with a width of 397 feet extending to a

depth of about 978 feet.

ZONING:

B-3, General Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

TOPOGRAPHY:

Generally level and near road grade.

IMPROVEMENTS:

None.

INTENDED USE:

The property was subsequently split. One of the parcels split off was

sold fo development of a fast food restaurant.

SALES DATA:

DATE OF SALE:

June 30, 2021

SALES PRICE:

$1,700,000

TERMS:

Arms length.

SELLER:

James Real Properties, LLC

PURCHASER:

The Eddie Jawad Family, LLC

VERIFICATION:

Public records

 

UNIT RATE:

$4.37± per square foot

COMMENTS:

A 1.224± acre portion of the property was split off and sold in July

2023 for $850,000. That parcel is being developed with a fast food

restaurant.

77

LAND VALUATION, Continued

SUMMARY OF LAND SALES

No.

Location

Sale Date

Site Size (ac)

Price

Price Per SF

1

37217 Utica Road,

Sterling Heights

2024

Listing

13.756±

$1,300,000

listing

$2.17±

2

33855 Mound Road,

Sterling Heights

Nov. 2024

2.604±

$200,000

$1.76±

3

46200 & 46260

Gratiot Ave,

Chesterfield Twp

Jan. 2022

5.454±

$445,000

$1.87±

4

ES Groesbeck, NS

Elizabeth, Clinton

Twp

Oct. 2021

21.456±

$1,350,000

$1.44±

5

SS Hall Rd, W of

Card Rd, Clinton Twp

June 2021

8.924±

$1,700,000

$4.37±

DISCUSSION OF ADJUSTMENTS

INTEREST CONVEYED

The subject property has been appraised to reflect a Fee Simple ownership. The land sales reflect

a similar interest and no adjustments were required under this heading.

FINANCING

Adjusting for financing involves putting the sales data into terms of cash or cash equivalent prices. 

All of the sales used are believed to be cash equivalent and require no adjustments.

CONDITIONS OF SALE

The category has been utilized to adjust for sales that are not arms length. An arm's length

transaction is defined in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th edition, as:

78

LAND VALUATION, Continued

 

A transaction between unrelated parties who are each acting in his or her own best

interest.

Comparables 1 represents a listing as opposed to a closed transaction. Sales will typically transact

at less than the asking price. In the instance of this comparable the property ultimately sold in 2026

for significantly less than the asking price. The purchase price was approximately 40% lower than

the asking price, however this would not have been known as of the date of valuation. A downward

adjustment of 25% has been applied in this instance to account for the comparable being a listing.

All of the other sales presented are understood to have been arms length transactions. Hence, no

adjustments have been made to these comparables.

MARKET CONDITIONS

This adjustment category reflects changes in market conditions that occur over a period of time. The

comparable land sales transpired between June 2021 and 2024, while the date of valuation is

December 31, 2024. Land sales activity has been limited making determination of a market

conditions adjustment difficult. Furthermore there hasn’t been any new development in the subject’s

neighborhood over the past decade.

Changes in rental rates, vacancy rates, and capitalization rates can be an indicator for land values. 

Value Trends reviewed market reports prepared by the brokerage Colliers International between

2022 and 2025. The Colliers International reports presents data specific to several submarkets

including Macomb County. Asking rental rates for retail space have fluctuated back and forth in the

Macomb Submarket over this time period. Vacancy rates also fluctuated back and forth but

remained relatively level overall. There was also an increase in capitalization rates that accompanied

a rise in interest rates over this period. An increasing trend in capitalization rates can be one factor

that indicates a decline in market values.

Based on a combination of a lack of local market activity, and the retail statistics reviewed, no

adjustment was applied to the land sales for market conditions.

PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT ITEMS

LOCATION

The subject is located on Groesbeck Highway just south of 15 Mile Road. This location is

comprised of a mixture of generally older industrial and commercial properties. There are many

vacant industrial and commercial properties that line the corridor, and it has been described as 

79

LAND VALUATION, Continued

lacking cohesiveness, walkability, and aesthetic value. In addition, median household income levels

in the area are below the County average.

Comparable Listing 1 is located less than 3 miles west northwest of the subject on Utica Road at

Hayes Road. This particular location has some nearby local commercial development, and is also

in close proximity to the Clinton River. Development along this portion of Utica Road is definitively

less intensive than found at the subject. Overall this location on Utica Road is inferior and an

upward adjustment has been made.

Comparable Sale 2 is located just over 6 miles west of the subject on the west side of Mound Road,

north of 14 Mile Road. Mound Road and Groesbeck Highway both have an industrial character,

although the development along Groesbeck Highway is generally older. Some major manufacturing

facilities are located along Mound Road. There are also pockets of commercial uses along both

Mound Road. Overall the Mound Road location is superior and a downward adjustment has been

applied.

Comparable Sale 3 is located just under 7 miles north northeast of the subject on the east side of

Gratiot Avenue, in Chesterfield Township. This particular location along Gratiot Avenue has both

retail and industrial uses and is a little different than Gratiot Avenue south of Mt Clemens. Median

household income levels are also higher in Chesterfield Township than in Clinton Township. A

downward adjustment was applied to the comparable for superior location.

Comparable Sale 4 is located on the east side of Groesbeck Highway, the north side of Elizabeth

Road, and the west side of North Avenue, in Clinton Township. This location is north of Mt

Clemens, and just under 5 miles northeast of the subject. This location along Groesbeck Highway

also consists of both industrial and commercial uses. No adjustment was made to this sale for

location.

Comparable Sale 5 is located in Clinton Township on the south side of Hall Road (M-59), near Card

Road. Hall Road is a major commercial corridor in Macomb County and definitively superior to

Groesbeck Highway. A downward adjustment was applied to this comparable for location.

ZONING

This element is intended to account for differences in zoning between the subject and the

comparables. Comparables 1, 2, and 5 have a similar commercial zoning and no adjustments were

made.

Comparable Sale 3 consists of a couple parcels. The larger parcel is zoned C-3 Commercial, while

the smaller parcel has a residential zoning. An upward adjustment was applied to account for this.

80

LAND VALUATION, Continued

Comparable Sale 4 was zoned B-2 Community Commercial, but subsequently rezoned PUD after

acquisition. The property was acquired for a mixed use development consisting of both retail,

residential, and senior living. An upward adjustment has been made to account for this.

SITE SIZE

The comparable ranged in size from 2.604± to 21.456± acres, while the subject contains 12.084±

acres. Small parcels often generate a higher unit rate than large parcels. Adjustments have been

made based on parcel size.

FUNCTIONAL UTILITY

This category is intended to account for differences in functional utility, such as irregular shaped

parcels with limited use or wetlands.

Comparable 1 is located in close proximity to the Clinton River and a smaller stream that connects

with the Clinton River. The parcel is wooded and the southernmost portions appear to just reach

some of the stream. While a survey was not available it appears likely the utility of the parcel would

be to some degree impacted by its proximity to the stream. An upward adjustment has been made

as a result.

Comparable Sale 2 is also impacted by a stream. Its southern boundary runs along the streams

course. The utility of the parcel is impacted by the location of the stream. A downward adjustment

was applied as a result.

Comparable Sale 4 contains a small pond that appears to be just under 1 acre in size. An upward

adjustment has been applied to account for the impact of the pond.

UTILITIES

The subject and all of the comparables have all utilities available. Therefore, no adjustments were

made under this heading.

SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS

Following adjustments the land sales indicated unit rates ranging from $1.82 to $3.28 psf. The mean

average of this range was $2.40 psf, while the median was $2.26 psf. Comparable Sale 5 is likely

the best comparable but is also the oldest. This comparable is similar in size, zoning and is also

located in Clinton Township. On the other hand, while the other comparables adjusted somewhat

closely to one another, Comparable Sale 5 was significantly higher than the others. Ultimately,

81

LAND VALUATION, Continued

slightly greater weight has been placed on Comparable Sale 5, but weight was also afforded the other

comparables.

Based on the analysis conducted, the initial value without consideration of demolition has been

concluded at a unit rate of $3.00 psf, indicating a preliminary value of $1,579,137.

The subject would require demolition of the existing improvements in order to be a vacant parcel

of land. As a result, the cost of demolition must be estimated and deducted from the preliminary

land value. Marshall Valuation Service has been used to estimate the cost of demolition. Class C

demolition as of December 2024 is indicated as ranging between $6.15 to $9.14 psf. This range is

then adjusted by the local multiplier for the Detroit, Michigan area indicated at 1.07. This results

in an adjusted range of $6.58 to $9.78 psf. A conclusion was made at $8.00 psf. The subject

contains 113,950 square feet, which at a demolition rate of $8.00 psf would cost $911,600 to

demolish. This amount is deducted from the preliminary value above.

$1,579,137 - Preliminary land value

$ 911,600 - Demolition cost

$ 667,537 - Land Value

The definition of “True cash value” means the usual selling price which is frequently referred to as

the "most probable price.” Within the context of this definition, the value selected as representative

of the subject falls towards the mid point of a probable range of true cash value. Customarily,

appraisal conclusions are rounded to reflect the lack of precision associated with value opinions. 

Traditionally, a value estimate is reported as a single dollar amount called a point estimate. The

significant number considered to best reflect this point estimate as it relates to the subject in this

instance is a multiple of $25,000. Therefore, based on the analysis conducted, it is my opinion that

the True Cash Value of the subject’s underlying land as of December 31, 2024 is as follows:

Land Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $650,000

82

LAND VALUATION, Continued

83

LAND VALUATION, Continued 

Subject 

: 

34800 Groesbeck 

Location: 

Hwy 

Community: 

Clinton Twp 

Parcel Size (Ac.) 

12.084 

Sale Date: 

Sale Price: 

Price Per SF: 

Adjustment Categories 

Property Rights 

Fee Simple 

Financing 

Cash 

Conditions of Sale 

Arms Length 

Market Condtions 

12/31/2024 

Adjusted Unit Rate 

Location 

Groesbeck 

Zoning 

B-3 

Parcel Size 

12.084 ac. 

Functionality 

Adequate 

Utilities 

All available 

Summary of Adjustments 

Final Adjusted Unit Rate 

LL #1 

37217 Utica Rd 

Sterling Heights 

13.756 

2024 Listing 

$1,300,000 

$2.17 

0% 

0% 

-25% 

0% 

$1.63 

25% 

0% 

0% 

25% 

0% 

56% 

$2.54 

LS #2 

33855 Mound Rd 

Sterling Heights 

2.604 

Nov-24 

$200,000 

$1.76 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

$1.76 

-10% 

0% 

-5% 

50% 

0% 

28% 

$2.26 

83 

LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID 

LS #3 

46200-46260 

Gratiot Ave 

Chesterfield Twp 

5.454 

Jan-22 

$445,000 

$1.87 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

$1.87 

-10% 

10% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

-3% 

$1.82 

LS #4 

ES Groesbeck, NS 

Elizabeth Rd 

Clinton Twp 

21.456 

Oct-21 

$1,350,000 

$1.44 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

$1.44 

0% 

25% 

5% 

10% 

0% 

44% 

$2.09 

LS #5 

SS Hall Rd, W of 

Card Rd 

Clinton Twp 

8.924 

Jun-21 

$1,700,000 

$4.37 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

$4.37 

25% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

25% 

$3.28

INCOME APPROACH

The income approach, based on the principle of anticipation, reflects investor thinking and

motivations. Essentially, an investor anticipates among other things, earning income from their

equity investment and in effect, is trading a sum of present day dollars for anticipated future dollars

to be derived from an income-producing property. The objective of this approach is to equate the

anticipated future dollars with the present value or required investment dollars. Since future dollars

are worth less than present dollars, the future dollars must be discounted, fundamentally reflecting

the inherent risk and waiting time involved.

The process which relates the anticipated future dollars to a present worth figure (i.e., value) is called

income capitalization. Income capitalization consists of methods, techniques and mathematical

procedures that an appraiser uses when analyzing a property’s capacity to generate monetary

benefits. The process converts the benefits into an indication of present value. For income-

producing properties, the future dollars are provided by two sources; namely, periodic net income

received during the term of ownership and net proceeds upon resale of the property at the termination

of ownership. Generally speaking, there are several capitalization methods that can be employed. 

The capitalization method applicable to a given type of investment can include multiple

methodologies and is determined by the characteristics of the income expected to be produced, the

nature of the capital recovery provisions, the reasonableness of the required assumptions for each

valuation technique, the property itself and market conditions effective as of the time of the analysis

or date(s) of valuation.

The steps for each of the techniques under the income approach include the following:

•

Estimate all forms of potential gross rental income, including tenant

reimbursements, parking income etcetera.

•

Estimate stabilized vacancy and collection allowance. 

•

Calculate the effective gross income by subtracting vacancies and collection losses

from the potential gross rental income.

•

Estimate operating expenses.

•

Calculate net operating income by subtracting the estimated expenses from

estimated gross rental income.

•

Select the appropriate capitalization technique.

•

Convert the income estimate into value by implementing the selected capitalization

technique.

The most widely used and acceptable methods of income capitalization include direct and yield

capitalization. These methods are based on differing type measurements of expected earnings and

involve different assumptions concerning the relationship between the expected earnings and value.

Direct Capitalization is “A method used to convert an estimate of a single year’s income expectancy

into an indication of value in one direct step, either by dividing the net income estimate by an

84

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

appropriate capitalization rate or by multiplying the income estimate by an appropriate

capitalization rate or by multiplying the income estimate by an appropriate factor. Direct

capitalization employs capitalization rates and multiplies extracted from market data. Only one

year’s income is used. Yield and value change are implied, but not explicitly identified.”5 What is

referred to as the overall capitalization rate (Ro) is defined as “an income rate for the total real

property interest that reflects the relationship between a single year’s net operating income

expectancy and the total property price or value.”

In the direct capitalization process, value is equal to income divided by the capitalization rate, or:

Value = NOI ÷ Ro

This algebraic equation can be used to solve for capitalization rate as follows:

Ro = NOI ÷ Value

Another valuation technique useful for valuing multi-tenant properties is a Discounted Cash Flow

(DCF) analysis. This technique is frequently (commonly) referred to as yield capitalization. “Yield

capitalization is used to convert explicit future economic benefits into an indication of present value

by applying an appropriate discount rate. To select an appropriate discount rate for a market value

appraisal, an appraiser analyzes market evidence of the yields anticipated by typical investors,

supported by market sales data, or both.”6 Yield capitalization is useful in valuing a property with

a fluctuating income, and provides for distinct measurements of “return on” and “return of” capital. 

The biggest difference between direct and yield capitalizations is that yield capitalization allows for

income projections for more than one year, whereas, direct capitalization converts a single year’s

income into value.

Important to the accuracy of the DCF analysis is the selection of an appropriate yield rate, which is

defined as “a rate of return on capital for a specific time period, usually expressed as a compound

annual percentage rate; a yield rate considers all expected property benefits, including the proceeds

from sale at the termination of the investment; yield rates include and are calculated in the same

manner as the interest rate, internal rate of return (IRR), overall yield rate (Yo), and equity yield rate

(YE)”

Included amongst the advantages of utilizing the DCF analysis are the following: 

 5 The Appraisal of Real Estate, Appraisal Institute, 15th Edition, 2020, page 475.

 6 Ibid, page 519.

85

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

 •

Specifically addresses changes in income and/or value because there are no

constraints on growth patterns; 

 •

Capitalization rates and yield rates are not the same unless change equals zero;

 •

Can use irregular income and expense patterns;

 •

Can be used to test reasonableness of appraisal conclusions;

 •

Computer applications eliminate many arithmetic errors.

Although there are many advantages in using a DCF analysis, if used improperly a number of

disadvantages profoundly outweigh the advantages. These include:

 •

making projections not warranted by market evidence;

 •

use of unsubstantiated forecasts (appraiser’s subjective opinions);

 •

minor “leaning” in either direction can subtly affect the analysis results.

 •

temptation to let computer do the appraisers “thinking” and mistaking number

crunching for analysis;

 •

failure to recognize the current position in real estate cycle when making forecasts.

 •

if the information provided by ownership and/or their representatives includes

discrepancies for future years and accurate information is available for the current

year, then direct capitalization is likely to be more accurate.

 •

an abundance of assumptions are required for information that should otherwise be

known.

In the instance of this valuation direction capitalization of the subject’s estimated net operating

income has been utilized.

DISCUSSION OF SUBJECT’S RENTAL HISTORY

The first step in the income approach is to estimate the Gross Potential Income the subject is capable

of producing. The subject has been vacant for several years and does not have a rental history to

discuss.

Comparable Rental Data

The following pages include write-ups of the rental comparables utilized.

86

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

87

INCOME APPROACH, Continued 

Narn 

© 

| 4% Subject 

: 

@ Comparable 

COMPARABLE 

| 

RENTS MAP 

87

RENT COMPARABLE ONE

NAME:

Universal Center

ADDRESS:

28600 Dequindre Road, Warren, Macomb County, Michigan

LOCATION:

Located on the east side of Dequindre Road, south of 12 Mile

Road.

PARCEL NUMBER(S):

12-13-18-101-013

PHYSICAL DATA:

UNIT SIZE:

101,773± square feet

HEIGHT:

20± feet

88

RENT COMPARABLE 1, Continued

BUILT:

1965±

VISIBILITY:

Good. The property is visible along the east side of

Dequindre road.

ZONING:

C-2

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is located in a multiple-tenant shopping

center known as Universal Center. The property is the former

Universal Mall, which was de-malled in 2008 and

redeveloped.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

3,925± persons per square mile - 2017

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$46,347 - 2017

TRAFFIC COUNT:

18,967 vehicles - 2017. The traffic count was substantially

higher in later years. In 2019 it was reported at 38,505

vehicles.

LEASE DATA:

LEASE RATE:

$4.75± psf

DATE OF LEASE:

November 2017

TERM OF LEASE:

5 years

TERMS:

NNN

TENANT:

G4CE Entertainment

VERIFICATION:

Third party; Public records as to some physical features;

Brokerage listing

89

RENT COMPARABLE TWO

ADDRESS:

495 Summit Drive, Waterford Township, Oakland County,

Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the west side of Summit Drive,

which extends north / south between Elizabeth Lake Road and

Pontiac Lake Road. This location is west of Telegraph Road

and to the rear of the site of the former Summit Place Mall.

PARCEL NUMBER(S):

13-24-451-015

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

109,820± sf, gross leasable area

The lease in place utilizes an area of 109,820± sf, however the

90

RENT COMPARABLE 2, Continued

actual building area appears to be closer to 112,780± square

feet.

HEIGHT:

29 feet.

BUILT:

Built in 1991.

LAND AREA:

14.09± acres

The northern half of the parcel includes a pond and associated

wet areas. The pond and wet areas account for roughly 25%

of the total parcel area.

VISIBILITY:

Poor. The property does not have any major road exposure

and is located to the rear of a vacant regional mall.

ZONING:

C-4, Extensive Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The property is a big box commercial building originally built

as a Pace Membership Warehouse and later occupied as a

Sam’s Club. The building has concrete block and brick

exterior walls. There are 5 bay doors in the front southeast

corner. The rear northwest corner has 8 grade level bay

doors. 7 of the grade level bay doors were formerly truck

docks, however the truckwell was filled in for the tenant’s

use.

The property is part of a neighborhood that includes the now

closed and vacant Summit Place Mall. At the time of lease

the mall had not yet been demolished. The mall previously

served as a draw to the area and as of the date of sale there

were no definitive plans for redevelopment of the property. 

The property does not have major road frontage / exposure. 

The access roads into the property are privately owned and

have deteriorated substantially over the past several years.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

91

RENT COMPARABLE 2, Continued

POPULATION DENSITY:

2,067± persons per square mile - 2018

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$58,859 - 2018

TRAFFIC COUNT:

The property is an interior parcel without major road frontage.

LEASE DATA:

LEASE RATE:

$0.00 psf - First 5 months

$3.25 psf - 2 years

$4.75 psf - 3 years

$3.83± psf - Average

The lease also includes a provision for CAM reimbursement

of $1,500 per month, which equates to an additional $0.16±

psf. By adding the CAM reimbursement to the basic rent an

average rate of $3.99± psf is indicated. This average is

effectively a gross rate.

DATE OF LEASE:

March 23, 2018

TERM OF LEASE:

5 years

TERMS:

The lease is nearly on gross terms, with the exception of the

small portion going to CAM reimbursement. The tenant is

responsible for snow plowing, however because the parking

lot is used for winter boat storage, the plowing requirements

are less than they would be otherwise.

TENANT:

Tommy’s Detroit, LLC

VERIFICATION:

David Tisdale, property manager (248) 763-0350; Copy of the

Lease

COMMENTS:

The tenant uses the facility for boat and accessory sales,

service, and storage. The lease includes an optional extension

for an additional 5 years.

92

RENT COMPARABLE THREE

NAME:

Arbor Shopping Plaza

ADDRESS:

4235-4239 E. 12 Mile Road, Warren, Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the north side of 12 Mile Road, just

east of Ryan Road.

PARCEL NUMBER(S):

13-08-351-041

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

34,150± square feet

AREA LEASED:

15,000± square feet

93

RENT COMPARABLE 3, Continued

HEIGHT:

18 feet

BUILT:

Originally built in 1968 with subsequent renovation.

VISIBILITY:

Adequate

ZONING:

C-1, Local Business District

UTILITIES:

All available

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is a multiple-tenant commercial building

positioned so that it faces both 12 Mile and Ryan Roads. It

has a painted brick and concrete block exterior with covered

storefronts. It shares access and parking with an adjacent

multiple-tenant retail building. The tenants in the building

included CVS, Ross Medican Education Centers, and Al

Shahi Palace. Several changes in tenancy have occurred over

the years.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

3,912± persons per square mile - 2021

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$60,042 - 2021

TRAFFIC COUNT:

27,868 vehicles - 2021

LEASE DATA:

LEASE RATE:

$7.10 psf

LEASE TERM:

59 months

DATE OF LEASE:

February 2021

TERMS:

NNN

TENANT:

Al Shahi Palace

94

RENT COMPARABLE 3, Continued

VERIFICATION:

Encore 

Real 

Estate 

Investment 

Services 

offering

memorandum

COMMENTS:

CAM and Insurance expenses at the property were reported at

$0.66± psf in 2023.

95

RENT COMPARABLE FOUR

NAME:

Summit North

ADDRESS:

2212-2220 Mall Drive East, Waterford Township, Oakland

County, Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the north side of Mall Drive, and

the east side of Summit Drive, west of Telegraph Road, north

of Elizabeth Lake Road. This location is to the north and rear

of the site of the former Summit Place Mall.

PARCEL NUMBER(S):

13-24-476-003

13-24-476-005

96

RENT COMPARABLE 4, Continued

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

194,260± square feet

AREA LEASED:

49,775± square feet

HEIGHT:

24 feet

BUILT:

1994±

VISIBILITY:

Poor. The property does not have any major road exposure

and is located toward the rear of a former regional mall

property that has been demolished. The center has a

monument sign along Telegraph Road.

ZONING:

C-4, Extensive Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is part of a multiple-tenant shopping center

known as Summit North. Summit North at one time included

the tenants Best Buy, Builders Square, and Gander Mountain. 

There are no longer national brand tenants occupying the

center.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

1,970± persons per square mile - 2022

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$74,937 - 2022

TRAFFIC COUNT:

The property is an interior parcel without major road frontage.

LEASE DATA:

LEASE RATE:

$4.82± psf

The rental rate began at $2.29 psf in 2018, increased to $3.25

psf in 2019, and $3.74 psf in 2020. The rental rate adjusted

97

RENT COMPARABLE 4, Continued

to $3.62 psf in 2021, and $4.82 psf in 2022.

DATE OF LEASE:

2018

TERMS:

Gross

TENANT:

Oakland Elite Volleyball

VERIFICATION:

David Tisdale, property manager (248) 763-0350

98

RENT COMPARABLE FIVE

ADDRESS:

3100 Washtenaw Avenue, Ypsilanti Township, Michigan.

LOCATION:

The property wraps the northeast corner of Washtenaw

Avenue and Golfside Road.

PARCEL NUMBER:

K-11-06-325-033

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

91,743± square feet

AREA LEASED:

91,743± square feet

BUILDING HEIGHT:

20± feet

99

SALE COMPARABLE 5, Continued

BUILT:

Originally built in 1960.

LAND AREA:

11.022± acres

ZONING:

RC, Regional Corridor

UTILITIES:

All available

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is a former Kmart big box commercial

building that was vacated and subsequently leased to At

Home. The property has a brick and concrete block exterior. 

There is a cover double in-ground truckwell. The building is

standalone, but shares parking with another retail building

that was split into multiple unit and partially leased to a

fitness center.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

1,748± persons per square mile - 2022

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$64,130 - 2022

TRAFFIC COUNT:

19,060 along Washtenaw Avenue - 2022

LEASE DATA:

LEASE RATE:

$5.72 psf, flat for 2 years

The tenant is responsible for utilities and real estate tax

reimbursement. Real estate tax reimbursement was $0.73± psf

in 2021, and $0.75± psf in 2022. The tenant was effectively

paying a gross rental rate of $6.47 psf in 2022. The property

became uncapped in 2023 due to a sale and the tax expense

ballooned to $1.97± psf. It was unclear whether tax

reimbursements were capped, but the tenant ended up

vacating the property a little over 2 years later.

The landlord is responsible for CAM and insurance expenses.

100

SALE COMPARABLE 5, Continued

DATE OF LEASE:

December 2022

TERM OF LEASE:

2 years

TENANT:

At Home

VERIFICATION:

Stan Johnson Co brokerage offering memorandum; Public

records

COMMENT:

This was an optional extension that was executed. The tenant

was paying the same base rental rate prior to extension. The

tenant has two (2) 5-year optional extension remaining, with

base rental rates of $6.00 and $6.27 psf, respectively.

101

RENT COMPARABLE SIX

NAME:

Oakland Pointe

ADDRESS:

550-600 N Telegraph Road, Pontiac, Oakland County,

Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the east side of Telegraph Road,

north of Elizabeth Lake Road, and across from the site fo the

former Summit Place Mall.

PARCEL NUMBER(S):

14-30-101-004

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

99,529± square feet

102

RENT COMPARABLE 6, Continued

AREA LEASED:

25,960± square feet

HEIGHT:

22 feet

BUILT:

1985

VISIBILITY:

Average

ZONING:

C4, Suburban Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is part of a large shopping center known as

Oakland Pointe. The majority of Oakland Pointe is located at

the northeast corner of Telegraph Road and Elizabeth Lake

Road includes a mixture of inline and anchor units. The

tenancy has remained mostly retail oriented following the

closure of the mall, although there are some tenants

occupying space for office related purposes. The portion of

the property represented by this comparable is located in an

anchor building at the north end of the center. At one time

the tenants include Circuit City and Media Play, and prior to

that a Builders Square.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

3,080± persons per square mile - 2023

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$42,791 - 2023

TRAFFIC COUNT:

25,573 vehicles along Telegraph Road - 2023

LEASE DATA:

LEASE RATE:

$4.16± psf, Gross

DATE OF LEASE:

Month-to-month (as of August 2023)

TENANT:

Value World

103

RENT COMPARABLE 6, Continued

VERIFICATION:

Jonna Group brokerage offering flyer

COMMENTS:

The other tenant in the center is Harbor Freight Tools, and

there was 53,208± square feet of vacant space. Harbor Freight

Tools occupies a 20,361± square foot space and was paying a

rental of $7.83± psf, plus $0.59± psf in reimbursement. The

start date of that lease and term remaining was not specified.

104

RENT COMPARABLE SEVEN

NAME:

Imperial Plaza

ADDRESS:

41597 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the west side of Garfield Road,

south of Canal Road. It is part of a large multiple-tenant

shopping center.

PARCEL NUMBER(S):

16-11-07-426-015

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

84,966± square feet

AREA LEASED:

53,697± square feet

105

RENT COMPARABLE 7, Continued

HEIGHT:

18 feet

BUILT:

Originally built in 1980.

VISIBILITY:

Adequate

ZONING:

B-2, Community Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The property was originally occupied by Kmart who vacated

several years prior. The anchor unit is on its own tax parcel. 

The anchor unit was split into two (2) units. The other unit

was leased to a fitness center in 2020. The property is part of

a larger community shopping center with inline space and an

anchor occupied by Kroger. Occupancy at the larger

community shopping center has historically been above 90%.

The comparable has exterior walls consisting of concrete

block, brick, and decorative stone panels. There’s an in-

ground truckwell at the rear of the building, and a small

former garden center on the south side of the building. The

property was observed to be in average condition overall for

its age.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

3,595± persons per square mile - 2024

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$71,658 - 2024

TRAFFIC COUNT:

27,735 vehicles along Garfield Road - 2024

LEASE DATA:

LEASE RATE:

$8.02 psf

The lease rate represents an average over the term of the lease

weighing in free rent.

106

RENT COMPARABLE 7, Continued

DATE OF LEASE:

January 6, 2025

TERMS:

Gross plus utilities

TENANT:

Dropshot Limited

VERIFICATION:

Copy of the lease; Property management, David Tisdale

COMMENTS:

The tenant utilizes the space for pickleball. The unit was built

out with several pickleball courts and locker rooms.

The amount of tenant improvements provided was not

available when this report was completed.

107

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

A summary table of those comparable rents presented above is provided below. A discussion

pertaining to those adjustments necessary follows the table.

COMP

#

SIZE

(SF)

DATE

TERMS

RENT

RATE PSF

1

101,773

2017

NNN

$4.75

2

109,820

2018

Gross

$3.99

3

15,000

2021

NNN

$7.10

4

49,775

2022

Gross

$4.82

5

91,743

2022

Gross + RET

$5.72

6

25,960

2023

Gross

$4.16

7

53,697

2025

Gross

$8.02

Provided below is a discussion related to each of the adjustments required between the comparables

and the subject.

TERMS

There were multiple lease types observed for secondary uses of properties like the subject. The

subject’s market has been estimated based on gross rental terms. Adjustments are necessary to some

of the rent comparables to equalize the lease terms. Rent Comparable 1 is located at a multiple-

tenant center and total reimbursements were observed at effectively $2.76± psf on average across the

center. A specific breakdown of reimbursement for each tenant was unavailable but they are likely

to be below the average for anchor units, and above average for inline units. Having also reviewed

the expense comparables for this property in the past, the reimbursements for Rent Comparable 1

were estimated at $2.25± psf.

Rent Comparable 3 was also leased on NNN terms. Reimbursements were indicated at $2.50 psf

in the listing documents obtained. The comparable has been adjusted by this amount.

Rent Comparable 5 was effectively leased on gross plus taxes terms. The tenant is responsible for

the reimbursement of real estate taxes, but the landlord is responsible for everything else, except the

tenant’s utility cost. Tax reimbursement was $0.73 psf in 2021, and $0.75 psf in 2022. The

108

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

comparable has been adjusted up by $0.75 psf to reflect the lease rate being paid when renewed.

CONDITIONS OF LEASE

The category has been utilized to adjust for sales that are not arms length, or include other factors

requiring consideration. An arm's length transaction is defined in The Dictionary of Real Estate

Appraisal, 7th edition, as:

 

A transaction between unrelated parties who are each acting in his or her own best

interest.

To the best of my knowledge all of the rents utilized represent arms length transactions reflective of

market rent and no adjustments are required.

MARKET CONDITIONS

This adjustment category reflects changes in market condition that occur over a period of time. The

rents transpired between 2017 and January 2025. An extensive discussion of market conditions is

presented later in the Sales Comparison Approach. Market rental rates have fluctuated back and

forth in recent years. Furthermore, development trends in the subject’s neighborhood do not suggest

market rents are on the rise in this location. As a result of these factors, no adjustments were made

for market condition.

PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT ITEMS

LOCATION

This adjustment category reflects perceived differences between the subject’s location and that of

the comparable sales. Separate adjustments are made for exposure / visibility. The subject is located

on Groesbeck Highway in southern Clinton Township. More specifically, the subject is located in

the southern portion of Clinton Township in close proximity to the Cities of Fraser and Roseville. 

The median household income level in these communities is lower than in Clinton Township.

Rent Comparable 1 is located on the east side of Dequindre Road at 12 Mile Road, in the City of

Warren. The population density in Warren is slightly higher than in Clinton Township, however

median household income levels are lower. That said, this particular location is a much more viable

retail area than the subject’s location. There are several national tenants in the comparable’s general

area. Overall, Rent Comparable 1 has a superior location and a downward adjustment has been

109

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

made.

Rent Comparable 3 is located approximately 1 mile east of Rent Comparable 1. This location is also

superior to the subject’s location, although there are fewer national tenants in Rent Comparable 1's

location. A downward adjustment has been applied to Rent Comparable 3 for location.

Rent Comparables 2 and 4 are located to the rear of what was the Summit Place Mall, in Waterford

Charter Township, Oakland County. At the time of lease, the mall improvementshad been closed

but had not been demolished. The closure of mall years prior led to an exodus of most national

retailers from this location. The population density in Clinton Township is higher than in Waterford

Township. Median household income levels are similar. Overall the subject’s location is slightly

superior and an upward adjustment has been made.

Rent Comparable 6 is located on the east side of Telegraph Road in the City of Pontiac, and in close

proximity to Rent Comparables 2 and 4. The subject’s location is slightly superior and an upward

adjustment has been made.

Rent Comparable 5 wraps around the northeast corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Golfside Road,

in Ypsilanti Charter Township, Washtenaw County. The population density and median household

income levels in Ypsilanti Township are lower than in Clinton Township, however these statistics

along do not paint the full picture. The comparable is located in close proximity to Pittsfield

Township and Ann Arbor, both of which have higher median household income levels than Clinton

Township. Furthermore, Washtenaw Avenue remains a more viable retail location than the subject’s

location along Groesbeck Highway. Overall the comparable’s location is superior and a downward

adjustment has been applied.

Lastly, Rent Comparable 7 is located on the west side of Garfield Road, south of Canal Road, in

Clinton Township. This location in the north of Clinton Township has higher median household

income levels and is a stronger retail location. The comparable’s location is superior and a

downward adjustment has been applied.

VISIBILITY / EXPOSURE

This adjustment category is intended to account for differences in visibility / exposure between the

subject and the comparables. The annual daily traffic count along Groesbeck Highway near the

subject was 26,620 vehicles in 2024 per MDOT.

With the exception of Rent Comparables 2 and 4 all of the comparables are location along major

roads with adequate visibility. Rent Comparables 2 and 4 do not have major road exposure and no

longer receive exposure from the adjacent mall property. Significant upward adjustments have been

110

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

made to account for the lack of exposure.

ACCESS

This adjustment category is intended to account for issues with access. Rent Comparables 2 and 4

are accessed along three private streets that have extensive deterioration. The deterioration is present

in all three directions leading to the property. An upward adjustment has been applied to account

for this issue. No other adjustments were made under this heading.

BUILDING / UNIT SIZE

This adjustment category has been applied to account for significant differences in the building size. 

Larger spaces tend to lease for less on a per square foot basis due to economies of scale and because

there are generally fewer users as building size increases. The rent comparables were put into a

scatterplot graph utilizing the rental rates as adjusted for all other factors except building / unit size. 

A correlation was observed except in the instance of Rent Comparable 6, which seemed to fall

outside of the trend. The graph is presented below.

Downward adjustments were applied to Rent Comparables 3, 6 and 7 recognizing their smaller size. 

No other adjustments were made.

111

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

AGE / CONDITION

The subject was built in 1970 and was in poor condition overall due to a number of factors. These

factors include the condition of the parking lot and other site improvements, the condition of the

roof, and the condition of the interior. Substantial renovation is necessary to get the property even

in a preliminary state of readiness. These repairs are detailed in the Highest & Best Use section of

this report. The total cost necessary is $1,491,000. The deduction for capital expenses will be taken

after capitalization of the estimated net operating income.

Although there are necessary capital expenditures to make, even with this repair taken the subject

is still a 1970 era big box building. Some additional adjustment for condition is relevant as it relates

to the structure, outer walls, and other elements that make up the site and building.

Rent Comparable 1 was built in 1965 but was part of a major renovation that completely changed

the property’s effective age. As a result a downward adjustment was made. Rent Comparables 2,

4, and 6 were built between 1985 and 1994. Downward adjustments were made to account for their

superior age. An upward adjustment was made to Rent Comparable 5, which was originally built

in 1960. No other adjustments were applied.

OTHER FACTORS

No adjustments have been made under this heading.

ESTIMATE OF MARKET RENTAL

The adjustment grids illustrating the adjustments made to the comparables are presented on the

following pages. Following adjustments the rental rates ranged from $3.91 to $6.72 psf, gross. The

majority of the rent comparables adjusted to the mid to upper end of the range. The bottom end of

the range was represented by Rent Comparable 6, which was also observed to be irregular in the

comparison of rental rates and unit size. Excluding this comparable the adjusted rents ranged from

$5.47 to $6.72 psf, gross. The mean average of this range was $6.15 psf, while the median was

$6.21 psf. The best comparables were likely represented by Rent Comparables 2, 5 and 6, which

were either former Kmart properties, or a secondary user standalone big box building. These

comparables didn’t lean in any direction within the adjusted range. As a result, the conclusion of

market rent will fall toward the center of the range.

Based on the analysis conducted and placing more support on the subject’s lease the market rent was

concluded at $6.20 psf, gross.

112

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

113

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

114

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

ESTIMATE OF VACANCY AND CREDIT LOSS

The Colliers International retail market report for the 4th Quarter of 2024 in Metro Detroit indicated

average vacancy throughout Metro Detroit of 5.2%. Average vacancy rates in the Macomb

submarket tended to be slightly higher in recent years. The average in the Macomb submarket was

reported at 5.7%.

The subject’s particular location along Groesbeck Highway in Clinton Township is known to have

higher vacancy levels, and the subject has been vacant for about 8 years leading up to the date of

valuation. Another former Kmart in the community known as Rent Comparable 7 was vacated in

the beginning of 2018 and found a tenant for part of the space by 2020. As of January 2025 the

property was nearly entirely leased. This comparison highlights the difficulty in getting the subject

occupied in general and is in large part due to its location. This also highlights the reasoning for

selecting a stabilized vacancy rate above the Macomb submarket’s average.

If the subject were to be leased the landlord would almost certainly first incur a high expense to get

the space ready for occupancy, and a lease term of at least 10 years would be likely. The subject’s

particular location bears greater risk that the tenant will vacate the premises prematurely, and finding

another tenant to follow would likely take longer.

Stabilized vacancy has been estimated by considering a few scenarios. All involve an initial 10 year

lease, with 50% chance of renewal, and renewal periods of 10 years. Scenario #1 considers a

releasing period of 1-1/2 years, and implies a repeating vacancy of 4.8%. This is considered an

optimistic scenario for the subject. Scenario #2 considers a releasing period of 2-1/2 years, and

implies a repeating vacancy rate of 7.7%. Scenario #3 considers a break in the lease after 5 years,

a releasing period of 2-1/2 years, then a 50% chance to renew. This implies a vacancy of 12.5% over

a term of 40 years. Lastly Scenario #4 considers a recurring break in the lease after 5 years, with 2-

1/2 years to find another tenant. This implies a recurring vacancy of 33.3% and is considered a

pessimistic estimate. The more likely scenarios are #2 and #3, which average to near 10%. 

Therefore, based on the analysis made average stabilized vacancy has been estimated at 10.0% of

gross rent as of the date of valuation.

Collection losses have been accounted for at an additional 1.0% of gross rent. Collection losses

have been deducted from gross rent to provide an estimate of effective gross income. The addition

of estimated vacancy and collection losses totals 11.0%.

Operating Expenses

Value Trends was provided historical income and expense statements for the subject as of 2024 and

115

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

2025. The subject did not generate any income during this years or several other prior, but the

statement provides some perspective on operating expenses. It is noted however that expenses will

be typically be lower during times of vacancy as there may not be a need for snow plowing and other

variable items. The historical expenses are presented below.

The high cost of repairs in 2024 is believed to have been due to prepayment of $450,000 to repair

the roof. This expense will be handled as a capital expenditure. With the roof expense removed,

the total expenses for 2024 were $236,585. CAM expenses were effectively $0.41± and $0.38± psf

in 2024 and 2025, respectively. Insurance was $0.41± and $0.38± psf, respectively.

Expense comparables have been used to aid in conclusion expenses for the subject during

occupancy.

Management Fees

Management charges are a proper expense of operation, whether management services are contracted

116

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

or provided by the property owner. The expense of management is usually expressed as a percentage

of effective gross income and reflects the local pattern for such charges. Management expenses may

include the cost of telephone service, clerical help, legal or accounting services, printing, postage,

advertising, plus the owners time related to collecting rentals, paying bills, making certain the

property is properly maintained, marketing vacant units, etcetera.

Management fees were not reflected on the subject’s historical income and expense statements. 

Management of the subject has previously indicated that they charge 5% of gross income at other

properties. Generally speaking, management fees tend to range from 2.5% to 5.0% of effective gross

income, so the fee quoted by management is within the range typically charged. The level of

management fees charged is typically a function of the intensity of management required. The

management fee has been estimated at 3.0% of effective gross income.

Real Estate Taxes

Since the function of this appraisal is to assist in the determination of the subject’s True Cash Value

for an ad valorem tax appeal, real estate taxes are not estimated. Rather, a tax capitalization

component is added to the overall rate utilized to value the subject. The 2025 millage rate was

58.3747. Under gross lease terms the landlord is responsible for 100% of the real estate taxes. A

tax capitalization load factor of 2.92% will be added to the overall capitalization rate.

CAM Expenses

In estimating CAM expenses Value Trends reviewed several expense comparables. The data

reviewed is presented below.

CAM EXPENSE COMPARABLES

Identification

Type

Date

Building Size

CAM Exp. PSF

At Home, Ypsilanti

Big Box

2021

91,743±

$1.01±

Tel Huron, Pontiac

Multi-Tenant

2019

96,105±

$0.66±

Clawson Center, Clawson

Multi-Tenant

2020

91,266±

$0.90±

Universal Center, Warren

Multi-Tenant

2023

410,382±

$1.07±

Holly Plaza, Holly

Multi-Tenant

2018

90,146±

$0.39±

117

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

Roundtree Plaza,

Ypsilanti Twp.

Multi-Tenant

2017

246,620±

$0.99±

Stadium Center, Port

Huron

Multi-Tenant

2017

92,365±

$1.28±

Whole Foods, Kentwood

Single-Tenant

2022

40,500±

$0.68±

Mill Creek, Flint Twp.

Multi-Tenant

2019

65,947±

$0.53±

Edgewood Towne Center,

Lansing

Multi-Tenant

2020

85,757±

$1.95±

Commerce Woods,

Commerce Twp.

Multi-Tenant

2023

62,800±

$2.38±

The CAM expenses from the comparables in the table above ranged from $0.39 to $2.38 psf.

In addition to the above, Value Trends reviewed big box expense comparables indicated by a third

party. In total there were 4 comparables with expenses ranging from $0.86 to $1.34 psf. The

expenses were similar to those observed at several multi-tenant properties reviewed and presented

in the table above. CAM expenses have been estimated at $0.75 psf, or $85,463.

Insurance Expenses

In estimating insurance expenses Value Trends reviewed several expense comparables as well the

subject’s historical expense. The data reviewed is presented below.

INSURANCE EXPENSE COMPARABLES

Identification

Type

Date

Building Size

Ins. Exp. PSF

At Home, Ypsilanti

Big Box & Auto

Center

2021

91,743±

$0.15±

Tel Huron, Pontiac

Multi-Tenant

2019

96,105±

$0.23±

Clawson Center, Clawson

Multi-Tenant

2020

91,266±

$0.18±

Universal Center, Warren

Multi-Tenant

2023

410,382±

$0.25±

Holly Plaza, Holly

Multi-Tenant

2018

90,146±

$0.08±

118

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

Roundtree Plaza,

Ypsilanti Twp.

Multi-Tenant

2017

246,620±

$0.12±

Stadium Center, Port

Huron

Multi-Tenant

2017

92,365±

$0.30±

Whole Foods, Kentwood

Single-Tenant

2022

40,500±

$0.20±

Mill Creek, Flint Twp.

Multi-Tenant

2019

65,947±

$0.19±

Edgewood Towne Center,

Lansing

Multi-Tenant

2020

85,757±

$0.27±

Commerce Woods,

Commerce Twp.

Multi-Tenant

2023

62,800±

$0.26±

The insurance expense comparables ranged from $0.08 to $0.30 psf. The range indicated by the

comparables is typical of the market, and similar to what I’ve observed in the past. The subject’s

historical insurance expense was reported at $0.41± and $0.38± psf in 2024 and 2025, respectively. 

This level of expense is high in relation to the comparables. Based on the information observed

insurance expense for this analysis has been estimated at $0.25 psf, or $28,488.

Administrative Expenses

Administration expenses can include certain repairs and maintenance, accounting fees, and

professional fees, among some other items. This is generally a non-reimbursable category. The

expense category has been stabilized at $0.05± psf, or $5,698.

INCOME/EXPENSE STATEMENTS

A reconstructed income and expense statement is provided below for the appraised property as of

December 31, 2024.

119

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

120

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

CAPITALIZATION ANALYSIS

The next step in the appraisal process is the actual capitalization of the indicated net operating

income into an indication of value. Various techniques are utilized to assist in the selection of an

overall rate. These include abstracted rates from comparable sales in Michigan, and review of Realty

Rates Investor Survey. Abstracted rates from sales of retail properties in Michigan are provided first.

The capitalization rates in the table above range from 7.36% to 13.07%, with a mean average of

10.0%. The average from the specifically single-tenant properties was 9.85%.

Value Trends reviewed the Realty Rates Investor Survey from the 1st Quarter of 2025. The data

below pertains to Retail - Free Standing.

121

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

As shown in the following Realty Rates tables, capitalization rates for retail - free standing ranged

from 5.79% to 13.93%. The average rates indicated were 8.07% via a DCR, 8.95% via the Band of

Investment, and 10.28% via surveyed rates.

In interpreting the previous table presenting Realty Rate’s data, the reader should consider that the

statistics provided reflect a larger market and not necessarily those of the subject’s neighborhood,

Macomb County, and the State of Michigan.

Lastly, a strength and weaknesses summary has been compiled prior to concluding a final

capitalization rate. The summary presents factors considered when concluding the subject’s

capitalization rate.

122

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

Subject Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses

The subject has exposure / visibility

from a major road

The subject was built in 1970

The subject has a long history of

vacancy

Lack of recent development activity in

the neighborhood

The frontage corridor has a number of

older vacant properties

Median household income levels in the

area are below the County average.

Source

Minimum

Maximum

Average

Select Capitalization Rate Comparables

7.36%

13.07%

10.00%

Realty Rates

5.79%

13.93%

8.7%-10.28%

A heavier weight has been placed on the averages. Based on the analysis conducted the subject’s

overall capitalization rate has been estimated at 10.00% as of the December 31, 2024 date of

valuation. In selecting this rate, consideration has been taken to reflect the subject’s location, age,

and the type of tenants present in the neighborhood.

Prior to deriving a final indication of value via the income approach, the tax component must be

accounted for. “The stabilized net income derived from the operation of the property in question

cannot be estimated because one major expense of owning property is real estate taxes, and these

taxes cannot be known so long as the assessed value of the property is being contested. 

Consequently, the appraiser must estimate the net income of the property before the payment of real

estate taxes and then add the real estate tax factor to the overall capitalization rate to arrive at the

indicated value of the property by the income capitalization approach”7.

The following calculation translates the property tax component into a tax capitalization factor,

 7 Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, 2nd Edition, ©1995, Appraisal Institute, Pages 520 - 521.

123

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

which is then added to the overall capitalization rate. The 2025 millage rate was 58.3747. The tax

capitalization component to add to the capitalization rate has been concluded for the December 31,

2024 date of valuation as follows.

Tax Year 2025: ((50% * 58.3747) / 1000 = 0.0292, or 2.92%

Adding the calculated tax component percentage to the previously derived income capitalization rate

results in an adjusted capitalization rate accounting for the tax component.

Overall Capitalization Rate + Tax Capitalization Factor = Tax Capitalization Rate

Date of Valuation

Tax Capitalization Rate

December 31, 2024

10.00% + 2.92% = 12.92%

PRELIMINARY VALUE - INCOME APPROACH

The annual net operating income estimated for the subject as of December 31, 2024 was $490,265. 

Applying the overall capitalization rate to the net operating income results in an estimated value as

follows:

$490,265 / 12.92% = $3,794,995

124

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE & COST TO ACHIEVE STABILIZATION - INCOME APPROACH

As detailed in the Highest & Best Use section of this report there are capital expenditures necessary

to get the property even in a preliminary state of readiness for occupancy. These items are

summarized below. Copies of the quotes received to complete this work are included in the

Addendum of this report.

$ 450,000 - Repair & Restore the Roof

$ 755,000 - Parking Lot Refinish & Striping (adjusted to year-end 2024)

$ 286,000 - Removed Existing Interior Finish (adjusted to year-end 2024)

$1,491,000 - Total Preliminary Expenditure

In addition to capital expenditures, the subject was vacant as of the date of valuation and would incur

rent loss and additional cost to achieve stabilization. The subject’s stabilized vacancy was concluded

at 10.0% however actual vacancy is 100.0%. A knowledgeable purchaser of the subject would be

aware of the cost to achieve stabilization and take this consideration into account in what they would

be willing to pay for the property.

Put another way, the above income analysis assumes the subject has a tenant in place as of the date

of valuation. However, because the subject was vacant as of the date of valuation an investor

seeking to acquire the property based on the estimate income parameters would incur cost and loss

rent in the process of getting the property leased.

The subject contains 113,950 square feet. Stabilized vacancy was estimated at 10.0%. Therefore,

the subject needs to get (113,950 sf * (1 - 10.0%)) 102,555± square feet leased to achieve

stabilization. The cost to achieve stabilization includes lost rent during the time that the lease up

occurs, tenant improvements to accommodate the tenant, and leasing commissions.

There are several variables needed for the calculation of rent loss and the cost to achieve

stabilization. These include the total square footage that needs to be leased; the lease up period;

market rent; the amount of tenant improvements; and leasing commissions. The lease up period has

been estimated at 1 year with the entire lease up occurring at the end of 1 year. The tenant

improvements have been estimated at $10.00 psf. Value Trends also reviewed the PwC Investor

Survey and reviewed it’s indications of tenant improvements. If the lease up involved multi-tenancy

the cost of tenant improvements would be substantially higher as they would need to demise the

property into multiple units. The leases of properties like the subject were observed to typically be

for a term of 10 years with options that follow. This analysis uses an initial 10 year term. Leasing

commissions have been estimated at 5.0%.

125

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

Lastly, a discount rate of 10% has been applied to the rent loss and cost to achieve stabilization. The

discount rate has been utilized because the figures represent future dollars that needs to be reflected

on a present value basis.

In conclusion the rent loss and cost to achieve stabilization has been estimated at $1,818,824 as of

the date of valuation. This represents a deduction from the previously determined value as though

the property were leased to stabilized occupancy. The adjustments to reflect the capital expenditures,

and rent loss and cost to achieve stabilization are shown below.

$3,794,995 - Value as Stabilized

$1,491,000 - Capital Expenses

$1,818,824 - Rent Loss & Cost to Achieve Stabilization

$ 485,170 - Adjusted Value Estimate

FINAL INCOME APPROACH VALUE CONCLUSION

The definition of True Cash Value requires appraisers to estimate value based on the usual selling

price. Customarily, appraisal conclusions are rounded to reflect the lack of precision associated with

value opinions. Traditionally, a value estimate is reported as a single dollar amount called a point

126

INCOME APPROACH, Continued

estimate. The significant number considered to best reflect this point estimate as it relates to the

appraised property with the direct capitalization technique is a multiple of $25,000.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the indicated True Cash Value of the subject via this technique,

effective December 31, 2024, is as follows:

VALUE VIA INCOME APPROACH --------------------------------------- $500,000

127

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH

The sales comparison approach is based upon the proposition that an informed purchaser would pay

no more for a property than the cost of acquiring an existing property with similar utility. This

approach involves the analysis and comparison of market transactions, i.e., the prices being paid for

similar properties, prices asked by owners, and offers made by prospective purchasers. Adjustments

are then made to the sale prices of the comparable properties to arrive at an indication of what the

subject property might sell for. Typically, a unit of comparison for commercial properties is the

price per square foot of building area. The unit prices of the comparable properties are then adjusted

for differences and correlated into an indication of value for the subject.

The sales comparison approach is a method of estimating market value whereby a subject property

is compared with comparable properties that have recently sold. Although it is always preferable

that the comparable be located in the same area, it may sometimes be necessary to select sales from

other locations. One premise of the sales comparison approach is that the market will determine a

price for the property being appraised in the same manner that it determines the prices of

comparable, competitive properties. Essentially, the sales comparison approach is a systematic

procedure for carrying out comparative shopping. As applied to real estate, the comparison is

applied to the unique characteristics of the economic good that cause real estate prices to vary.

The sales comparison approach is typically applied in five steps. These steps are:

 1.

Research the marketplace for sales, listings, and offerings.

 2.

Qualify the data as to the bona fide nature of the prices, terms, and motivating forces.

 3.

Compare the comparable' differences to the subject property. This comparison is made of

physical, economic, and other variables considered to be important. 

 4.

The differences between the subject and comparable are measured.

 5.

Formulate a final opinion of market value.

A search was conducted for sales of similar big box commercial buildings in Southeast Michigan. 

The search was complicated by the fact that there have not been many recent sales of vacant

comparable big box buildings in Southeast Michigan. There are a few instances where big box

buildings were acquired and then demolished. There are other instances where the property was

acquired for a use that is not permitted at the subject. In particular there are few sales where the

building was converted to self storage, which is not a permitted use for the subject.

A total of four (4) comparable sales are utilized in this valuation and presented beginning on the

following page.

128

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

129

SALE COMPARABLE ONE

ADDRESS:

495 Summit Drive, Waterford Township, Oakland County,

Michigan

LOCATION:

The property is located on the west side of Summit Drive,

which extends north / south between Elizabeth Lake Road and

Pontiac Lake Road. This location is west of Telegraph Road

and to the rear of the site of the former Summit Place Mall.

PARCEL NUMBER(S):

13-24-451-015

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

110,000± sf, gross

The listing indicated a total building area of 110,000± square

130

SALE COMPARABLE 1, Continued

feet. The actual building area appears to be closer to 112,780±

square feet.

HEIGHT:

29 feet.

BUILT:

Built in 1991.

LAND AREA:

14.09± acres

The northern half of the parcel includes a pond and associated

wet areas. The pond and wet areas account for roughly 25%

of the total parcel area.

VISIBILITY:

Poor. The property does not have any major road exposure

and is located to the rear of a vacant regional mall.

ZONING:

C-4, Extensive Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The property is a big box commercial building originally built

as a Pace Membership Warehouse and later occupied as a

Sam’s Club. The building was vacant at the time of sale. The

building has concrete block and brick exterior walls. There

are 5 bay doors in the front southeast corner. The rear

northwest corner has an inground truckwell with 7 docks and

1 additional grade level bay door.

The property is part of a neighborhood that includes the now

closed and vacant Summit Place Mall. At the time of sale the

mall had not yet been demolished. The mall previously

served as a draw to the area and as of the date of sale there

were no definitive plans for redevelopment of the property. 

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

2,065± persons per square mile - 2017

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$58,924 - 2017

131

SALE COMPARABLE 1, Continued

TRAFFIC COUNT:

The property is an interior parcel without major road frontage.

SALES DATA:

SALE PRICE:

$1,600,000

SALE TERMS:

Arms length

SALE DATE:

July 19, 2017

INTEREST SOLD:

Fee Simple. The building was dark at the time of sale.

PURCHASER:

Oakland-Summit Investments, LLC

SELLER:

Southland-Delaware Business Trust

VERIFICATION:

David Tisdale, property manager (248) 763-0350; Public

records

UNIT RATE:

$14.55± per square foot, gross based on the square footage

indicated at the time of sale.

COMMENTS:

The local access roads are privately owned. It was reported

that the access roads are supposed to be maintained by the

owner of the mall, however they have deteriorated

significantly.

132

SALE COMPARABLE TWO

ADDRESS:

200-220 N. Telegraph Road, Pontiac, Oakland County,

Michigan.

LOCATION:

The property is located at the northeast corner of Telegraph

Road and Elizabeth Lake Road.

PARCEL NUMBER:

14-30-101-002

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

65,000± square feet, per brokerage listing

City assessment records indicate a total building area of

61,910± square feet, however the sketch on which this area

was based has error in measurement. The actual building area

133

SALE COMPARABLE 2, Continued

appears to be slightly greater than indicated by the brokerage

listing.

BUILDING HEIGHT:

18± feet.

BUILT:

1987±

LAND AREA:

6.48± acres

ZONING:

C4, Suburban Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is a big box commercial building formerly

occupied by Toys R Us. The rear of the building has 3 truck

docks. The exterior consists of decorative brick and concrete

block.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

3,065± persons per square mile - 2020

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$34,673 - 2020

TRAFFIC COUNT:

25,165 along Telegraph Road - 2020

SALES DATA:

SALE PRICE:

$1,500,000

SALE TERMS:

Arms length

SALE DATE:

October 8, 2020

INTEREST SOLD:

Fee simple

PURCHASER:

CTCK, LLC (Carl’s Golfland)

SELLER:

TRU 2005 RE I, LLC

134

SALE COMPARABLE 2, Continued

VERIFICATION:

Public Records including PTA; Broker listing packet;

Purchaser

UNIT RATE:

$23.08± per square foot.

COMMENTS:

The purchaser was Carl’s Golfland who has a golf

recreational facility about 2-1/2 miles south southeast along

Telegraph Road.

135

SALE COMPARABLE 2, Continued

136

SALE COMPARABLE THREE

ADDRESS:

7601 23 Mile Road, Shelby Township, Michigan.

LOCATION:

The property wraps the northwest corner of 23 Mile Road and

Van Dyke Avenue.

PARCEL NUMBER:

23-07-16-476-028 & 23-07-16-476-029

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

103,043± square feet

BUILDING HEIGHT:

20± feet

BUILT:

1973

137

SALE COMPARABLE 3, Continued

LAND AREA:

10.123± acres

ZONING:

C-3, Shopping Center Business

UTILITIES:

All available.

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is a big box commercial building originally

occupied by Kmart. It is attached to another unit that was

occupied by Big Lots. There are a few improved outlots in

front of the building and the building faces Van Dyke

Avenue. The building has a decorative painted concrete block

exterior and a small fenced in garden center. The building has

a double in-ground truckwell at the rear and additional bay

doors. The parking lot has some gatoring deterioration

evident.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

2,258± persons per square mile - 2021

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$86,760 - 2021

TRAFFIC COUNT:

23,033 along Van Dyke Avenue - 2021

SALES DATA:

SALE PRICE:

$2,500,000

SALE TERMS:

Arms length

SALE DATE:

August 27, 2021

INTEREST SOLD:

Fee simple

PURCHASER:

Ishtar Wholesale, LLC

SELLER:

23 Mile Van Dyke, LLC

VERIFICATION:

Public records

138

SALE COMPARABLE 3, Continued

UNIT RATE:

$24.26± per square foot

COMMENTS:

The purchaser operates Middle Eastern restaurants and

markets in Metro Detroit. The purchaser subsequently leased

and much smaller space at another nearby property in Shelby

Township and in 2026 placed the property back on the market

for sale with an asking price of $7,500,000.

The property previously sold on October 7, 2020 for

$2,200,000.

139

SALE COMPARABLE FOUR

ADDRESS:

3100 Washtenaw Avenue, Ypsilanti Township, Michigan.

LOCATION:

The property wraps the northeast corner of Washtenaw

Avenue and Golfside Road.

PARCEL NUMBER:

K-11-06-325-033

PHYSICAL DATA:

BUILDING SIZE:

91,743± square feet

BUILDING HEIGHT:

20± feet

BUILT:

Originally built in 1960.

140

SALE COMPARABLE 4, Continued

LAND AREA:

11.022± acres

ZONING:

RC, Regional Corridor

UTILITIES:

All available

DESCRIPTION:

The comparable is a former Kmart big box commercial

building that was vacated and subsequently leased to At

Home. The property has a brick and concrete block exterior. 

There is a cover double in-ground truckwell. The building is

standalone, but shares parking with another retail building

that was split into multiple unit and partially leased to a

fitness center. Following acquisition the roof was repaired

and the parking lot was resurfaced.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

POPULATION DENSITY:

1,748± persons per square mile - 2022

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

$64,130 - 2022

TRAFFIC COUNT:

19,060 along Washtenaw Avenue - 2022

SALES DATA:

SALE PRICE:

$2,600,000

SALE TERMS:

Arms length. The property sold via auction. According to the

listing broker 

SALE DATE:

December 27, 2022

INTEREST SOLD:

Leased fee. While the property was leased at the time, the

future occupancy of the tenant was unknown. The tenant

eventually vacated the property in 2025 during a bankruptcy.

PURCHASER:

Amerco Real Estate Company

SELLER:

Seritage KMT Finance, LLC

141

SALE COMPARABLE 4, Continued

VERIFICATION:

Northmarq, listing brokerage; Public records

UNIT RATE:

$28.34± per square foot

COMMENTS:

The purchaser is a subsidiary of U-Haul.

142

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

A summary table of those comparable sales presented above is provided below. A discussion

pertaining to those adjustments necessary follows the table.

COMP

#

SIZE

(SF)

DATE

PRICE

UNIT RATE

PER SF

1

110,000±

July 2017

$1,600,000

$14.55±

2

65,000±

October 2020

$1,500,000

$23.08±

3

103,043±

August 2021

$2,500,000

$24.26±

4

91,743±

December 2022

$2,600,000

$28.34±

Provided below is a discussion related to each of the adjustments required between the comparables

and the subject.

INTEREST CONVEYED

The interest appraised is the fee simple ownership interest. With the exception of Comparble Sale

4, the comparables sold subject to the same interest. Comparable Sale 4 sold subject to a leased fee

interest with the tenant At Home in place. However, the future occupancy of the tenant was

unknown. The contract rent in place appears to be market oriented, however a vacant property

would still incur cost to achieve occupancy. The leased fee aspect is diminished by the fact the

future occupancy of the tenant was unknown. A slight downward adjustment was applied 

FINANCING

Adjusting for financing involves putting the sales data into terms of cash or cash equivalent prices. 

All of the sales used are believed to be cash equivalent and require no adjustments.

CONDITIONS OF SALE

The category has been utilized to adjust for sales that are not arms length. An arm's length

transaction is defined in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th edition, as:

 

A transaction between unrelated parties who are each acting in his or her own best

143

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

interest.

In the instance of Comparable Sale 4, the property sold via auction but was listed on the open market

and had six (6) bidders leading up to the sale. To the best of my knowledge all of the sales utilized

represent arms length transactions reflective of market value and no adjustments are required.

MARKET CONDITIONS

This adjustment category reflects changes in market condition that occur over a period of time. The

comparables transpired between July 2017 and December 2022. In order to gauge changes in market

conditions that may have occurred between the comparables’ dates of sale and the subject’s date of

valuation Value Trends compiled and analyzed a sample of 28 big box sales that transpired between

2015 and 2024 in southern Michigan. The prices are represented on the per square foot basis. The

large majority of sales are from Southeast Michigan. This information is summarized in the graph

below.

Had a straight line trendline been included in the graph above it would indicate a decline in prices

over the period shown, however the graph is by no means definitive. The correlation observed is

considered weak.

As another indicator Value Trends also reviewed 23 shopping center sales. All of the properties are

144

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

located in southern Michigan. The dates of sale extend between June 2014 and January 2025. The

majority of the properties were between 90% to 100% leased at the time of sale. A capitalization

rate was available for all of the properties included.

The first graph below presents the sample of sales arrayed by date of sale and the price per square

foot. The prices paid for properties these types of properties have a strong correlation with the

income level, and because income levels at differing properties can vary substantially, there is a wide

range of unit rates produced by the sample. As a result of the wide range in unit rates, a trending of

this sample’s prices paid per square foot does not yield an absolutely definitive market conditions

change.

The second graph that follows presents the same sample of shopping center sales arrayed by date of

sales and their respective capitalization rates. In this second graph capitalization rates do appear to

have increased over recent years.

145

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

The sample of shopping center sales also includes a couple properties where there have been

multiple sales over recent years. These include the Roseville Towne Center in Roseville, and

Crossroads Towne Center in Howell. Roseville Towne Center sold for $112.15± psf in 2017 and

then $105.69± psf in 2020. The capitalization rates were 8.75% in 2017, and 10.00% in 2020. In

the instance of Crossroads Towne Center, the property sold for $78.22± psf in 2015 and $89.95± psf

in 2019. The capitalization rates were 8.30% and 8.67%, respectively.

An increasing trend in capitalization rates can be one factor that indicates a decline in market values. 

This is especially important in light of recent trends in interest rates. Other factors to consider are

trends in rental rates and market vacancy. Value Trends reviewed historical retail market reports

prepared by Colliers International between 2019 and 2024 to assist in this analysis. These reports

indicate that retail asking rental rates have fluctuated back and forth between this period. Vacancy

levels also fluctuated back and forth over this period, but have remained relatively level overall.

The reader should also take into account the subject’s specific location along the Groesbeck

Highway corridor. The corridor is recognized as having many vacant properties, and lacking

cohesiveness and aesthetic value. Furthermore, there has been no development in the neighborhood

over recent years. Taken in summary these factors do not suggest annual appreciation in market

value.

Based on the information available no adjustments have been applied for market conditions over

time.

146

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT ITEMS

LOCATION

This adjustment category reflects perceived differences between the subject’s location and that of

the comparable sales. Separate adjustments are made for exposure / visibility. The subject is located

on Groesbeck Highway in southern Clinton Township. More specifically, the subject is located in

the southern portion of Clinton Township in close proximity to the Cities of Fraser and Roseville. 

The median household income level in these communities is lower than in Clinton Township.

Comparable Sale 1 is located to the rear of what was the Summit Place Mall, in Waterford Charter

Township, Oakland County. At the time of sale, the mall had been closed but had not been

demolished. The closure of mall years prior led to an exodus of most national retailers from this

location. The population density in Clinton Township is higher than in Waterford Township. 

Median household income levels are similar. Overall the subject’s location is slightly superior and

an upward adjustment has been made.

Comparable Sale 2 is located at the northeast corner of Telegraph Road and Elizabeth Lake Road,

in the City of Pontiac, in the same general neighborhood as Comparable Sale 1. The subject’s

location is slightly superior and an upward adjustment has been made.

Comparable Sale 3 wraps the northwest corner of Van Dyke Avenue and 23 Mile Road, in Shelby

Township, Macomb County. The population density is higher in Clinton Township than in Shelby

Township, but median household income levels a significantly higher in Shelby Township. The

Shelby Township location is superior overall and a downward adjustment has been made.

Comparable Sale 4 wraps the northeast corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Golfside Road, in

Ypsilanti Charter Township, Washtenaw County. The population density and median household

income levels in Ypsilanti Township are lower than in Clinton Township, however these statistics

along do not paint the full picture. The comparable is located in close proximity to Pittsfield

Township and Ann Arbor, both of which have higher median household income levels than Clinton

Township. Furthermore, Washtenaw Avenue remains a more viable retail location than the subject’s

location along Groesbeck Highway. Overall the comparable’s location is superior and a downward

adjustment has been applied.

VISIBILITY / EXPOSURE

This adjustment category is intended to account for differences in visibility / exposure between the

subject and the comparables. The annual daily traffic count along Groesbeck Highway near the

147

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

subject was 26,620 vehicles in 2024 per MDOT. Comparable Sale 1does not have major road

exposure and no longer generates exposure from the adjacent mall property. A significant upward

adjustment has been made to account for the lack of exposure.

Comparable Sale 2 has exposure / visibility from both Telegraph Road and Elizabeth Lake Road. 

The average daily traffic count along this area of Telegraph Road were slightly less than along

Groesbeck Highway at the subject. No adjustment was considered necessary to this comparable.

Comparable Sale 3 has exposure visibility from a couple major roads including Van Dyke Avenue

and 23 Mile Road. The average daily traffic counts along Van Dyke Avenue were slightly less than

along Groesbeck Highway, however with the inclusion of 23 Mile Road there are greater. No

adjustment was considered necessary to this comparable.

Comparable Sale 4 has exposure / visibility from Washtenaw Avenue and Golfside Drive. The

average daily traffic count along Washtenaw Avenue is lower than along Groesbeck Highway. With

the inclusion of Golfside Drive they are slightly higher than along Groesbeck Highway. No

adjustment was considered necessary to this comparable.

ACCESS

This adjustment category is intended to account for issues with access. Comparable Sale 1 is

accessed along three private streets that have extensive deterioration. The deterioration is present

in all three directions leading to the property, and there had been an inactive traffic light in front of

the property. An upward adjustment has been applied to account for this issue. No other

adjustments were made under this heading.

BUILDING SIZE

This adjustment category has been applied to account for significant differences in the building size. 

Larger buildings tend to sell for less on a per square foot basis due to economies of scale and because

there are generally fewer users as building size increases. A slight downward adjustment was

applied to Comparable Sale 2 recognizing its smaller size. No other adjustments were made.

EXCESS/SURPLUS LAND

This category is intended to account for the impact of having excess or surplus land that provides

a nominal contribution to the value. No other adjustments were made under this heading.

148

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

AGE/CONDITION

The subject was built in 1970 and was in poor condition overall due to a number of factors. These

factors include the condition of the parking lot and other site improvements, the condition of the

roof, and the condition of the interior. Substantial renovation is necessary to get the property even

in a preliminary state of readiness. These repairs are detailed in the Highest & Best Use section of

this report. The total cost necessary is $1,491,000. Taking this expense into account would require

very large percentage adjustments to the comparables, and as a result the adjustment related to these

specific items will be taken following the other adjustments. A further discussion of these items

follows all other adjustments. These capital adjustments aside the subject is still a 1970 era big box

building. Some additional adjustment for condition is relevant as it relates to the structure, outer

walls, and other elements that make up the site and building.

Comparable Sales 1 and 2 were built in 1991 and 1987, respectively. A downward adjustment has

been applied to both sales to reflect their newer age. Comparable Sale 3 is similar in age to the

subject and no adjustment was necessary. Comparable Sale 4 was built in 1960 and has been

adjusted upward slightly.

OTHER FACTORS

No adjustments were made under this heading.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS

Following adjustment for the items discussed above the comparable sales indicated unit rates of

$19.95 to $23.41 psf. At this point the capital expenditures still need to be accounted for.

In the instance of Comparable Sales 1 and 2, neither of these properties required a new roof, parking

lot paving, or gutting of the interior finish. In both case the full capital expenditure deduction is

applicable. The capital expenditure totals $1,491,000, or $13.08 per square foot of the subject’s

building area.

The parking lot at Comparable Sale 3 has enough deterioration evident in the parking lot that it is

highly likely it would need to be repaired prior to occupancy. The repair has been based on a 2" mill

and pave. The 2" mill and pave at the subject was effectively quoted at $1.56 psf. Comparable Sale

3 sold in 2021. An annual inflationary adjustment of 2.4% has been applied to bring to cost back

to the time of the date of sale, resulting in a paving estimate of $1.39 psf. The total square footage

of the asphalt was calculated at 312,712± sf based on aerial mapping calculations. This is believed

to be a reasonably accurate figure. Thus the cost to re-pave the parking area has been estimated at

149

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

($1.39 psf X 312,712 sf) $434,670. The subject’s cost was previously estimated at $755,000. The

difference represents the amount still necessary to deduct. The total capital expenditure adjustment

to Comparable Sale 3 has been estimated at $1,056,330, which equals the sum the subject’s capital

expenditure less the asphalt expenditure estimated for the comparable. The capital expenditure

deduction equals $9.27 psf.

Following acquisition of Comparable Sale 4 the roof was repaired and a portion of the parking lot

was re-paved. The repair has been based on a 2" mill and pave. The 2" mill and pave at the subject

was effectively quoted at $1.56 psf. Comparable Sale 4 sold in 2022. An annual inflationary

adjustment of 2.4% has been applied to bring to cost back to the time of the date of sale, resulting

in a paving estimate of $1.42 psf. The total square footage of the asphalt was calculated at 143,997±

sf based on aerial mapping calculations. Thus the cost to re-pave the parking area has been estimated

at ($1.42 psf X 143,997 sf) $204,476.

The cost to repair the subject’s roof totaled $450,000, or $3.95 psf quoted as of year-end 2024. This

cost has been used as a basis for estimating the cost to repair Comparable Sale 4's roof. An annual

inflationary adjustment of 2.4% has been applied to bring to cost back to the time of the date of sale,

resulting in a repair estimate of $3.77 psf. The building contains 91,743 square feet. Thus the cost

to repair the roof has been estimated at ($3.77 psf X 91,743 sf) $345,871.

The total capital expenditure adjustment to Comparable Sale 4 has been estimated at $940,653,

which equals the sum the subject’s capital expenditure less the asphalt and roof expenditures

estimated for the comparable. The capital expenditure deduction equals $8.25 psf.

CONCLUSION OF VALUE - DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH

An adjustment chart indicating the magnitude of adjustment made and corresponding adjusted unit

rates obtained is provided at the end of this section of the report.

Following all adjustments including those made for capital expenditures, a range in unit rates was

obtained of $6.87 to $15.16 psf. The mean average of this range was $11.11 psf, while the median

was $11.20 psf. The comparable sales indicate a range in value for the subject of (113,950 sf x

$6.87 psf) $782,837 to $1,727,999 (113,950 sf x $15.16 psf).

The best comparable was Comparable Sale 3 located in Shelby Township. It required the least

adjustment and indicated a unit rate of $12.57 psf. Greater weight has been placed on this sale. 

Comparable Sale 4 was acquired by a subsidiary of U-Haul and it is likely the purchaser was

speculating on being able to use the property for self-storage at some point in the future. There are

a number of instances where big box commercial buildings have been acquired for self-storage use, 

however this is not a permitted used on the subject. Less weight is placed on this comparable as a

150

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

result.

Comparable Sale 1 required the greatest adjustment and yielded the lowest unit rate. Comparable

Sale 2 required the least net adjustment, exclusive of the capital expenditure adjustment. The

comparable represents an example where an occupant was found for a commercial building in a

market with limited demand for commercial use. Both properties are provided some weight in the

final conclusion via this approach.

The definition of “True cash value” means the usual selling price which is frequently referred to as

the "most probable price”. Customarily, appraisal conclusions are rounded to reflect the lack of

precision associated with value opinions. Traditionally, a value estimate is reported as a single dollar

amount called a point estimate. The significant number considered to best reflect this point estimate

as it relates to the subject in this instance is a multiple of $25,000. Therefore, based on the analysis

conducted, it is my opinion that the true cash value of the subject real property as of December 31,

2024 is as follows:

VALUE VIA SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ---------------------------------- $1,250,000

151

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued

152

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, Continued 

COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENT GRID 

Location 

Sale Price 

Sale Date 

Seller 

Purchaser 

Land Area in Acres 

Gross Leasable Area (SF) 

Price Per SF 

Adjustment Items: 

Property Rights Conveyed 

Financing 

Conditions of Sale 

Market Conditions 

Adjusted Unit Rate 

Location 

Visibility 

/ Exposure 

Access 

Building Size 

Excess / Surplus Land 

Age / Condition 

Other Considerations 

Net Adjustment 

Prelim Adjusted $/SF 

Capital Exp. Deduction 

Final Adjusted $/SF 

SUBJECT 

34800 Groesbeck Hwy. 

Clinton Twp. 

12.084 

113,950 

Fee Simple 

Cash 

Arms Length 

31-Dec-24 

Groesbeck corridor 

Adequate 

Adequate 

113.950 sf 

No 

1970 

/ Poor 

None 

COMP #1 

495 Summit Dr. 

Waterford Twp. 

$1,600,000 

Jul-17 

Southland-Deleware 

Business Trust 

Oakland-Summit 

Investments, LLC 

14.090 

110,000 

$14.55 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

$14.55 

10.0% 

25.0% 

5.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

-5.0% 

0.0% 

37.2% 

$19.95 

($13.08) 

$6.87 

COMP #2 

200-220 N. Telegraph Rd. 

Pontiac 

$1,500,000 

Oct-20 

TRU 2005 RE I, LLC 

CTCK, LLC 

6.480 

65,000 

$23.08 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

$23.08 

10.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

-5.0% 

0.0% 

-5.0% 

0.0% 

-0.7% 

$22.91 

($13.08) 

$9.83 

152 

COMP #3 

7601 23 Mile Rd. 

Shelby Twp. 

$2,500,000 

Aug-21 

23 Mile Van Dyke, LLC 

Ishtar Wholesale, LLC 

10.123 

103,043 

$24.26 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

$24.26 

-10.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

-10.0% 

$21.84 

(89.27) 

$12.57 

COMP #4 

3100 Washtenaw Ave. 

Ypsilanti Twp. 

$2,600,000 

Dec-22 

Seritage KMT Finance, 

LLC 

Amerco Real Estate Co. 

11.022 

91,743 

$28.34 

-10.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

$25.51 

-10.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2.0% 

0.0% 

-8.2% 

$23.41 

(88.25) 

$15.16

FINAL RECONCILIATION AND VALUE CONCLUSION

The value indications from the applicable approaches to value are presented below and will be

followed by a review of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. This section will

conclude with a final estimate of true cash value for the subject's fee simple interest. The following

summarizes the indicated values from the applicable approaches to value.

LAND VALUATION

$ 650,000

INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE

$ 500,000

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE

$1,250,000

The Income Approach analyzes a property based upon its ability to produce income. The subject

is a big box commercial building. This type of property could be owner occupied or leased and

tenant occupied. The interest appraised is the fee simple estate. The subject is vacant and has been

vacant for an extended period of time. The conclusion of market rent is considered well supported

based on the quantity and quality of data presented. Several actual Michigan capitalization rate

comparables were presented, and these included sales of commercial single-occupant properties. 

The weaknesses of the income approach are that the subject has a long history of vacancy in an area

without demand for the uses permitted. In addition the income approach required large adjustments

for both capital expenditures and rent loss and the cost to achieve stabilization.

The Sales Comparison Approach utilized a total of four (4) comparable sales. Most of the sales

were of a fee simple interest like that of the subject. The sales were of single-occupant big box

buildings like the subject, although one of them had an attached smaller anchor. A couple of the

sales were of former Kmart buildings like the subject. The sales comparison approach required

downward adjustment for capital expenditures, but not to the same extended as necessary in the

income approach.

In considering the strengths and weaknesses of both, the sales comparison approach provided a more

reliable conclusion due to the subject being vacant at the time of sale. However the income approach

still has its merits and have been afforded a some weight. The sales comparison approach has been

provided greater weight in the final conclusion.

Based upon the analysis conducted, it is my opinion that the True Cash Value of the appraised

property effective December 31, 2024, was as follows:

FINAL ESTIMATE OF TRUE CASH VALUE ------------------------ $1,000,000

153

EXPOSURE TIME

The following definition pertaining to Exposure Time has been utilized in the development of this

real property appraisal. 

"EXPOSURE TIME: an opinion, based on supporting market data, of the length of time that the

property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical

consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal."8

The reasonable exposure period is a function of price, time and use, not an isolated estimate of time

alone. As an example, a parcel of vacant land could have been on the market for a period of two

years at a price of $2,000,000, which reasonably informed purchasers considered unreasonable. 

Then the owner reduced the price to $1,600,000 and starts to receive offers culminating in a

transaction at $1,400,000 six months later. Under such an example, the reasonable exposure time

would be six months at a value range of from $1,400,000 to $1,600,000.

In addition to having reviewed the exposure time for each of the comparables, this appraiser has

reviewed other sales data and also conferred with various brokers. In each instance, the broker

indicated a familiarity with the subject market. Based upon these interviews with market

participants, plus review of historical information, it has been concluded that as of the valuation

dates in this report the reasonable exposure time for the subject would be up to 12± months,

assuming pricing within the general range of that indicated as the subject's true cash value.

 8 Source: Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal

Foundation, 2024 edition; Definitions

154

A D D E N D U M

156

SE 

Silicoat Roofing 

Invoice 

1490 Premier Dr. Suite F 

Troy, MI 48084 

248-788-6010 

11/25/2024 

C/O David Tisdale &Co 

34800 Groesbeck Hwy 

5657 W Maple Rd Suite A 

Clinton Twp, MI 48035 

West Bloomfield Township, MI 48322 

Old K-Mart Building 

(248) 626-8220 

|Dtiz@aol.com 

Estimate #1115r4 

Repair and Restore complete roof. Approximately 114,000 square feet and an 

additional 5,000 sq ft overhangs 

Terms: 

/» Down payment starts the repair portion Repair throughout winter 

s Prior to starting the Silicone Restoration in the Spring of 2025 

Balance upon completion 

Total Amount 

$450,000.00 USE 

[»] 

P. 

150,000.00 

own 

Payment 

$ 

% A 

Total Due Now 

$150,000.00 

os 

gl 

; 

I 

p7. 

o ¢ 

a, fa 

Thank you for your business! 

LF 

www.SilicoatRoofing.com 

156

157

True North Asphalt, LLC 

1241 E 11 Mile Road 

Madison Heights, MI 

P 248-289-6826 

Truenorthasphalt.com 

BILLTO 

David Tisdale 

Proposed Service 

Quote 

Sales Person: Nick Whitehurst 

TRU = NORTH 

ASPHALT 

Phone: (517) 819-9396 

Email: nickw@truenorthasphalt.com 

JOB / PROJECT INFORMATION 

QUOTE SUMMARY 

Old K-Mart 

Quote #: 41026-1059 

34900 Groesbeck Hwy 

Date: 7/30/2026 7:58 PM 

Clinton Township, Michigan, 48035 

Quote Valid Through: 8/29/2026 

Payment Terms: DUR 

Description 

Amount 

4" Remove and Replace Blue On 

[124,209 Sq. Ft] 

$438,000.00 

[3106Tons] 

Work to be performed in [1] Mobilization(s) 

Remove existing asphalt up to 4" depth and haul off 

site. 

Grade existing subbase and compact. 

*If undercuts are required, export of soils and import 

of 21A Crushed Concrete will be performed at $80.00 

per ton 

Install 4" of 4E1 and SE1 asphalt in 2 lifts. 

Roll for compaction. 

2" Asphalt Profile Mill and Pave 

[223,290 Sq. Ft. 

$347,400.00 

Green On Map 

Striping 

[2,792 Tons] 

Work to be performed in [1] Mobilizations 

Mill off 2" of existing asphalt pavement and haul all 

debris off site. 

Clean asphalt pavement of all loose dirt and debris. 

*If Wedging is required prior to surface course 

installation it will be installed at an additional cost of 

$165.00 per ton 

Apply S5-1H bond coat to ensure proper adhesion. 

Provide and Install 2" of MDOT 5E1 asphalt. 

Roll for compaction 

Stripe parking lot with existing lay out and colors. 

$4,500.00 

Total $789,900.00 

Unless otherwise quoted, the following are excluded and it present on the job, may incur 

additional expense 

Excludes: permits, inspections, surcharges, undercutting of unsuitable sub bose, restoration 

of striping, restoration of landscaping, repair to hidden structures, such as but not limited to 

irrigation lines, electrical lines, or anything not marked by the miss dig system. 

157

158

RT Services & Management 

ESTI MATE 

24650 N. Cromwell Dr 

Franklin, MI 48025 

Phone: (313) 770.542 

8/31/2026 

OMER 

David Tilsdale 

Groesbeck - Kmart 

CASH 

IMPORTANT NOTES: 

cost will be added to 

Work contract to be signed upon acceptance of Estimate 

n of floor demo, 10% due at completion 

any late payment received after 30days will apply 10% fee 

I 

Does NOT include: 

items indicated below 

D 

RIPTIO 

R 

0 

Scope of Work: 

1 

299,000.00 

Approx. 115000k sq ft building 

: 

Remove all vinyl tile and carpet thru out property 

- 

Remove all vinyl tile and carpet in Mezzanine 

Remove lighting attached to acoustical ceiling 

Dispose/cut drywall where mold is found only 

Remove acoustical ceiling 

Installation of 40 lights 

I 

Does Not include the following: 

- 

No drywall installation 

- 

No stud removal 

- 

No concrete removal 

- 

No glue removal 

- 

permit if required 

environmental dispose fee 

> 

removing fixture from walls 

- 

any room demo 

charges** 

Thank you for your business! 

SUBTOTAL 

299,000.00 

TOTAL 

$ 299,000.00 

If you have any questions about this breakdown, please contact: 

Rajaei Abbass 

| (313) 770-9542 

| intbm@yahoo.com 

158

RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE

Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of

the Appraisal Institute. As a result, both this report and it's accompanying file are subject to duly

authorized request on behalf of the Appraisal Institute to review this documentation.

Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the

identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected or any reference to the Appraisal

Institute or the M.A.I. or R.M. designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising

media, public relations media, new media, sales media or any other public means of communication

without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned.

By receipt and acceptance of this report, the client agrees that it shall at all times hereafter, hold

harmless, defend and indemnify the appraiser, his employees and agents, and other associates from

all liability, damages, loss and expense from claims asserted by others arising from this appraisal and

hereby waives and releases said appraiser and aforesaid persons from any claim or liability arising

from such appraisal except for acts of fraud or intentional misrepresentation. 

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned do(es) hereby certify that to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief, except as

otherwise noted in this appraisal report:

 –

I (we) have personally inspected the interior and exterior of the subject property. The

improved comparables that are presented in this report have been inspected by the appraiser

signing this report.

 –

To the best of my (our) knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this

appraisal report, upon which the analysis, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are

based, are true and correct.

 –

The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported

assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my (our) personal, impartial, and unbiased

professional analyses, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations.

 –

I (we) have no present of prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report,

and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

 –

I (we) have performed no services, 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.

 –

I (we) have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the

159

CERTIFICATION, Continued

parties involved with this assignment.

 –

My (our) engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting

predetermined results.

 –

My (our) 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

assignment.

 –

The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been

prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

 –

The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been

prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice

(USPAP).

 –

As of the date of this report, I (Brandon L. Ellis) have completed the requirements under the

continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.

 –

No one other than the undersigned has provided significant professional assistance to the

person(s) signing this report, unless so stated.

 –

I (Brandon L. Ellis) am licensed in the State of Michigan as a state, Certified General

Appraiser. My permanent identification number is 1205068791.

The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by

its duly authorized representatives.

No responsibility has been assumed for matters which are legal in nature, nor has any opinion on title

been rendered. It is our assumption that the title is marketable.

Professional surveys pertaining to the subject property have neither been provided by the client or

prepared by the appraisers. Any sketches utilized in the report are included for assisting the reader

in visualizing the property only.

Information furnished by others is assumed to be true, correct and reliable. A reasonable effort has

been made to verify such information, however, no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed by the

appraiser(s).

160

CERTIFICATION, Continued

Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not

be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of

the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to

detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam

insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The 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. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any

expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert

in this field, if desired.

All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases and servitudes have been disregarded unless so specified

within the report. The property is analyzed as though under responsible ownership and competent

management.

In Michigan, appraiser are required to be licensed/certified and are regulated by the Michigan

Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, P.O. Box 30018, Lansing, MI 48909.

It is assumed that all of the building improvements are located within the boundaries or property

lines of the property described.

Court testimony required on condemnation proceedings, if any, will require not less than thirty (30)

days notice prior to such action to allow sufficient time for review.

This report does not include the valuation of oil and mineral rights, crops or commercial timber, if

any, presently on the property.

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

which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions, or

for engineering which may be necessary to discover such flaws.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. I (we) have not

made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the 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 together with a detailed analyses of the requirements of the ADA could reveal

that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the act. If so, this fact

could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I (we) have no direct evidence

relating to this issue, I (we) did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA

in estimating the value of the property.

161

CERTIFICATION, Continued

VALUE TRENDS, INC.

Brandon L. Ellis, MAI

September 8, 2026

President

Value Trends, Inc.

Certified General Appraiser - Michigan

License # 1205068791

162

Brandon L. Ellis, MAI

43145 W. 13 MILE ROAD, NOVI, MI 48377 (248) 840-0545

Experience

Has over twenty-five years of real estate appraising experience. Work assignments included both form and

narrative reporting of residential and commercial property values. Prepared reports for the following functions:

• mortgage loans

• condemnation procedures

• zoning appeals

• tax appeals

• establishing appropriate bid

and asking prices

• resolving various other legal matters

• setting rents and lease terms, etc.

• investment decisions

• foreclosure appraisal

• estate purposes

Education

Bachelor of Science Finance, December 2006

Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan

PROFESSIONAL COURSEWORK

Appraisal Institute 

• Appraisal Principles

• Appraisal Procedures

• Uniform Standards of Professional

Appraisal Practice, Part A

• Uniform Standards of Professional

Appraisal Practice, Part B

• General Appraiser Income Approach, Part 1

• General Appraiser Income Approach, Part 2

• Advanced Income Capitalization

• General Appraiser Sales Comparison

Approach

• Michigan Laws and Rules

• Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses

• Standards Update

• Finance, Statistics, and Valuation

Modeling

• General Report Writing and Case Studies

• General Site Valuation and Cost Approach

• General Market Analysis and Highest and

Best Use

• Business Practices and Ethics

• Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost

Approaches

• Advanced Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use

• Advanced Concepts and Case Studies

Middleton Real Estate Training

• Appraisal Report Writing

McKissock, Inc.

• Environmental Pollution and Mold

Professional Memberships And Affiliations

Member of the Appraisal Institute # 402128, currently certified

State Certified General Appraiser # 1205068791 - Michigan

Appraisal Institute, Great Lakes Chapter - Director (2017 - 2020)

Clients (Partial Listing)

Governmental Agencies 

• Dearborn Public Schools

• Macomb County Road Commission

• Oakland County Road Commission

• Schoolcraft College

• University of Detroit-Mercy

 Law School

Michigan Cities and Townships (Partial List) 

• Algonac

• Bedford Township

• Birmingham

• Chesterfield Township

• Dearborn

• Fort Gratiot Township

• Garfield Township

• Grand Rapids

• Holland

• Independence Township

• Ira Township

• Kentwood

• Madison Heights

• Macomb Township

• Marion Township

• Novi

• Oshtemo Township

• Oxford Township

• Ray Township

• Riley Township

• Rochester Hills

• Romulus

• Sault Ste. Marie

• Shelby Township

• St. Clair Shores

• Taylor

• Washington Township

• Westland

• Wyoming

Michigan Departments 

• Management and Budget

• Transportation (M•DOT)

Private Enterprises (Partial List) 

• A123 Systems

• AAA Insurance Company

• ADCO Construction

• AMC Theatres

• ATMF Cranbrook Village

• Archdiociese of Detroit

• Asset Acceptance Corp.

• Bank One

• Barton Malow

• BASF Corp.

• Beier Howlett, P.C.

• Berger Realty Group

• Brookdale Senior Housing

• Butzel Long P.C.

• Comerica Bank

• C. M. Real Estate Dev., LLC

• Credit Acceptance Corp.

• Domino’s Farms

• Dickenson Wright

• Farbman Group

• Flagstar Bank

• FLS Properties

• Foster Swift Collins & Smith, P.C.

• Fox Hill Chrysler Plymouth

• Frankel Associates

• Gallo Companies

• Gardner White

• Grand Sakwa

• Guardian Industries

• Hayman Company

• Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn

• Jackson National Life Insurance Co.

• Kojaian Companies

• Lawyer’s Title Insurance Co.

• Lombardo Companies

• Maddin, Hauser, Wartell, Roth, Heller &

 Pesses, P.C. 

• Michigan National Bank

• Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone

• Monaghan Law Firm

• Mount Christies Estates & Club at Mount

 Christie

• Nemier, Tolari, Landry, Mazzeo

 & Johnson, P.C.

• NHI-REIT of Michigan

• ORCO Investments

• Plante Moran

• Princeton Management

• REDICO

• Schostak Brothers & Company

• Seibert & Dloski

• Steinhardt, Pesick & Cohen

• StanCorp Mortgage Investors, LLC

• Standard Federal Bank

Private Enterprises (Partial List) 

• Thomas A. Duke Company

• Toll Brothers

• TRW

• University Bank

• Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP

• Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC

• Yazaki North America

← View full record