Appraisal Report Of The Vacant Commercial Land Located At 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan 49428

Transcription

1 Appraisal Report Of The Vacant Commercial Land Located At 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Prepared For Georgetown Township Attn: Mr. Roderick J. Weersing Assistant Manager 1515 Baldwin Street P.O. Box 769 Jension, Michigan Prepared By A. Van Stensel & Son, LLC James A. Van Stensel, Jr., SRA 5250 Northland Drive, NE, Suite E Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525

2 Arend Van Stensel, M.A.I James Van Stensel, S.R.A James Van Stensel, JR., S.R.A David Van Stensel, P.E. Dan Van Stensel April 24, 2015 Mr. Roderick J. Weersing Assistant Manager Georgetown Township 1515 Baldwin Street P.O. Box 769 Jension, Michigan RE: Property located at 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive, Jenison, Michigan Dear Mr. Weersing: In accordance with your request, I have completed an Appraisal Report of the above-referenced property. The subject property includes three parcels with acres of commercial land located at 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive, Jenison, Michigan. In completing the appraisal, I have viewed the subject property and all supporting sales data used in this report. The effective date of the appraisal is April 8, The fee simple estate is defined as: Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. 1 The appraisal is subject to the property being free of any contamination, asbestos, radon gas, or any other hazardous substances. The appraisal is also subject to various additional assumptions and limiting conditions that are cited within the contents of the report. 1 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5 th Edition, (Appraisal Institute, 2010), Page 78 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page I 5250 Northland Dr., NE, Suite E, Grand Rapids, MI Ph.: (616) Fax: (616)

3 The sales comparison approach method of valuation was used in determining the final opinion of value. Using this appraisal method, which is discussed in detail within the contents of the report, the final opinion of value for the property located at 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive, as is, is: Eight Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($840,000) Your attention is invited to the supporting data, the analysis of this data, and the conclusions derived from this data and entered in the report. Respectfully submitted, A. VAN STENSEL & SON, LLC James A. Van Stensel, Jr., SRA Certified General Real Estate Appraiser JAV Enclosure A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page II

4 Table of Contents Page Certification Statement... 1 Type of Appraisal... 2 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions... 3 Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions... 5 Identification of the Property... 7 Taxes and Assessment Data... 8 Zoning Statement of Property Rights Appraised Scope of the Appraisal Purpose of the Appraisal Intended Use Subject Property History Statement of Ownership Date of Appraisal Effective Date of Value Opinion Client and Intended User Market Analysis Site Analysis Highest and Best Use Analysis Exposure Time Estimate of Marketing Time The Valuation Process Sales Comparison Approach Reconciliation and Final Value Conclusion Addendum A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page III

5 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Certification Statement I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. 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. 5. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 8. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 10. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. 11. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 12. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 13. As of the date of this report, I have completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 1

6 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan 14. As of the date of this report, I have completed the Standards and Ethics Education Requirements for Candidates of the Appraisal Institute. 15. My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and its regulations. 16. In Michigan, appraisers are required to be licensed/certified and are regulated by the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, P.O. Box 30219, Lansing, MI Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report, especially any conclusions as to the value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which he is connected, shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned. A. Van Stensel & Son, LLC James A. Van Stensel, Jr., SRA Certified General Real Estate Appraiser A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 2

7 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Type of Appraisal Standard 2 of USPAP deals with the reporting of an appraisal. Each written real property appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following options and prominently state which option is used: Appraisal Report or Restricted Appraisal Report. 2 The essential difference between the two options is in the use and application of the terms state and summarize. State is used to connote a minimal presentation of information. Summarize is used to connote an expanded presentation of information. 3 The following is a comparison of the differences between the Appraisal Report and the Restricted Appraisal Report. (a) Appraisal Report (b) Restricted Appraisal Report i. state the identity of the client and any intended users, by name or type; i. state the identity of the client by name or type; and state a prominent use restriction that limits use of the report to the client and warns that the rationale for how the appraiser arrived at the opinions and conclusions set forth in the report may not be understood properly without additional information in the appraiser s workfile; ii. state the intended use of the appraisal; ii. state the intended use of the appraisal; iii. summarize information sufficient to identify the real estate or personal property involved in the appraisal, including the property characteristics relevant to the assignment; iii. state information sufficient to identify the real estate or personal property involved in the appraisal; iv. state the property interest appraised; iv. state the property interest appraised; v. state the type and definition of value and cite the source of the definition; v. state the type of value and cite the source of its definition; vi. state the effective date of the appraisal and the date of the report; vi. state the effective date of the appraisal and the date of the report; vii. summarize the scope of work used to develop the appraisal; vii. state the scope of work used to develop the appraisal; viii. summarize the information analyzed, the appraisal methods and techniques employed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions; exclusion of the sales comparison approach, cost approach, or income approach must be explained; viii. state the appraisal methods and techniques employed, state the value opinion(s) and conclusion(s) reached and reference the workfile; exclusion of the sales comparison approach, cost approach, or income approach must be explained; ix. state the use of the property existing as of the date of value and the use of the real estate or personal property reflected in the appraisal; x. when an opinion of highest and best use or the appropriate market or market level was developed by the appraiser, summarize the support and rationale for that opinion; xi. clearly and conspicuously state all extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions; and that their use might have affected the assignment results; and xii. include a signed certification in accordance with Standards Rule 2-3 or 8-3. Comments have not been included in this chart. ix. x. xi. xii. state the use of the property existing as of the date of value and the use of the real estate or personal property reflected in the appraisal; when an opinion of highest and best use or the appropriate market or market level was developed by the appraiser, state that opinion; clearly and conspicuously state all extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions; and that their use might have affected the assignment results; and include a signed certification in accordance with Standards Rule 2-3 or 8-3. This report is an Appraisal Report, in accordance with Standards Rule 2-2 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As such, it presents sufficient information to enable the client and other intended uses, as identified, to understand it properly. 2 USPAP Edition, (The Appraisal Foundation), Page U21 3 USPAP Edition, (The Appraisal Foundation), Page A24 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 2

8 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership. 2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefore. 4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 5. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering that might be required to discover such factors. 6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser and contained in the report were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished to the appraiser can be assumed by the appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the bylaws and regulations of the professional appraisal organizations with which the appraiser is affiliated. 8. Neither all, nor part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value, the identity of the appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected), shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the appraiser. 9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alternations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 3

9 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLAIMER: Unless specifically requested in writing by the client, all influences on value resulting from potential or actual environmental contamination or adverse environmental conditions, including without limitation asbestos, urea formaldehyde insulation, and mold, are excluded from this report. Recognizing, detecting or measuring environmental contamination or adverse environmental conditions and their influence on value are beyond the scope of the appraiser s expertise and beyond the scope of this report. The appraiser makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, and expresses no opinion on whether contamination or adverse environmental conditions currently exist, will exist in the future or how contamination or adverse environmental conditions could affect value. Nothing in this report is to be relied on as an indication that no environmental contamination or adverse environmental conditions are present. The appraiser recommends that each client retain a qualified environmental professional to recognize, detect, measure and otherwise assess environmental contamination and adverse environmental conditions. 11. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective in January of I have not made a specific compliance survey of this property to determine if it conforms with the requirements of the ADA. A compliance survey of the property could possibly reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of this Act. Noncompliance could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I have no direct evidence relating to this issue, I did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 4

10 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions Location 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Report Format Appraisal Report Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple Extraordinary Assumptions The final opinion of value assumes a net useable area of 9.3+/- acres. Hypothetical Conditions None Highest and Best Use of Site, as Vacant Commercial Age of Improvements None Site Data acres Zoning "CS", Community Service Commercial Census Tract Exposure Time 12 months Marketing Time 12 months Date of Value Opinion April 8, 2015 Date of Report April 24, 2015 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 5

11 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions-Continued Value from the Sales Comparison Approach Market Value: $840,000 Final Opinion of Value Market Value: $840,000 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 6

12 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Identification of the Property The subject property is located at 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive, Jenison, Michigan. The site is vacant land which had been improved with a large commercial building which was razed. Aerial photograph from Ottawa County GIS website A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 7

13 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Taxes and Assessment Data Legal Description : PART SE 1/4 COM SE COR, TH W ALG CEN LI TYLER ST FT TH N 49D31M34S E FT, TH N 2D51M04S E FT, TH N 61D58M20S W FT, TH N'LY ON SW'LY LI MAIN ST FT ON A 933 FT RAD CURVE RIGHT CHD BEARS N 47D29M44S W FT TO THE PT OF BEG OF THIS DESC, CONTINUING TH S FT, TH N 37D52M26S W 25 FT, TH S'LY FT ON A 25 FT RAD CURVE LEFT CHD BEARS S 26D07M34S W FT, TH S FT, TH S 84D38M34S W FT, TH S 30 FT, TH S 84D38M34S W FT, TH S TO CEN LI RUSH CREEK, TH NE'LY ALG SD CEN LI RUSH CREEK TO SW'LY LI MAIN ST, TH NW'LY ALG SD SW'LY LI MAIN ST TO PT OF BEG. SEC 13 T6N R13W : PART OF SE 1/4 COM SE SEC COR, TH N 89D 15M 54S W FT ALG CEN LI OF TYLER ST, TH N 49D 31M 34S E FT, N 02D 51M 04S E FT, TH N 61D 58M 20S W FT, TH NW'LY ALG A 933 FT RAD CURVE TO RIGHT (CHD BEARS N 47D 29M 44S W FT), TH N 63D 49M 51S W FT TO PT OF BEG, TH S 0D 07M 34S W 320 FT, S 84D 38M 34S W FT, TH S 0D 07M 34S W FT, N 86D 37M 55S W FT, TH N 0D 07M 34S E FT, S 89D 52M 26S E 192 FT, TH N 0D 07M 34S E FT TO S'LY LI OF CHICAGO DR, TH N 79D 22M E FT & N 84D 38M 34S E FT ALG SD R/W LI TO BEG, SD PROPERTY EXTENDS TO CEN LI OF RUSH CREEK, EXC COM NE COR SD PARCEL, TH S 0D 07M 34S W FT, N 89D 52M 26S W FT, TH N 0D 07M 34S E FT TO S'LY LI OF CHICAGO DR, TH N 84D 38M 34S E FT ALG SD LI TO BEG. SEC 13 T6N R13W : PART OF SE 1/4 COM SE SEC COR, TH N 89D 43M 38S W FT TO W LI OF E FT OF W 1/2 OF SE 1/4, TH N 0D 23M 21S E FT ALG SD LI TO PT OF BEG, TH N 0D 23M 21S E 571 FT, N 89D 52M 26S W FT, TH S 0D 23M 21S W FT, N 89D 36M 39S W 23.1 FT, S 0D 23M 21S W 310 FT, TH S 89D 36M 39S E FT TO BEG. SEC 13 T6N R13W Source: Georgetown Charter Township BS&A Census Tract A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 8

14 Permanent Taxable 2014 Summer 2014 Winter Parcel No. SEV Value Taxes Taxes $408,300 $161,798 $6, $ $1,115,200 $671,576 $27, $2, $79,000 $79,000 $3, $ Total $1,602,500 $912,374 $37,976 $3,199 Permanent Taxable 2013 Summer 2013 Winter Parcel No. SEV Value Taxes Taxes $478,500 $159,250 $6, $ $1,305,000 $661,000 $27, $2, $79,000 $79,000 $3, $ Total $1,862,500 $899,250 $37,430 $3,153 Permanent Taxable 2012 Summer 2012 Winter Parcel No. SEV Value Taxes Taxes $478,500 $478,500 $20, $1, $1,305,000 $1,305,000 $56, $4, $79,000 $79,000 $3, $ Total $1,862,500 $1,862,500 $80,625 $6,355 There are no delinquent taxes per Georgetown Township. 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan In the State of Michigan, real property is assessed at a ratio of 50% of True Cash Value. The state passed Proposal A which mandates that property is taxed at taxable value. The taxable value increases by no more than the inflation rate or 5%, whichever is lower, until title of the property is transferred. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 9

15 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Zoning The subject property is located in a "CS", Community Service Commercial according to Georgetown Township zoning information. A copy of the zoning map and ordinance are included in the addendum of the report. The following is a list of the permitted uses in the Community Service Commercial: A. Retail Food Establishments which supply groceries, fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy products, baked goods, confections, or similar commodities for consumption off the premises. Foodstuffs may be prepared or manufactured on the premises as an accessory activity if the sale of the product is limited to the local retail store. B. Other Retail Businesses such as drug, variety, dry goods, clothing, notions, music, book, hardware, or furniture stores which supply commodities on the premises. C. Office buildings for any of the following occupations: executive, administrative, professional, accounting, writing, clerical, stenographic, drafting, and office equipment and supplies sales. D. Medical offices including clinics. E. Banks, credit unions, savings and loan institutions not including drive-in facilities. F. Personal service establishments which perform personal services on the premises, including barber and beauty shops, interior decorating shops, photographic studios, Laundromats or similar uses. G. Hospitals, provided, the design standards defined in Chapter XX, shall apply. H. Commercial schools including art, business, music, dance, professional, and trade. I. Municipal buildings, exchanges, and public utility offices but not including storage yards, substations, or regulator stations. J. Accessory buildings and uses as defined in Chapter II. K. Any Retail Business whose principal activity is the sale of merchandise within an enclosed building. L. Service establishments including printing, publishing, photo reproduction, blue-printing, and related trades or arts. M. Assembly buildings including dance pavilions, auditoriums, churches, and private clubs. N. Public or private business schools or colleges. O. Municipal buildings and service installations. P. Public utility buildings and service installations. Q. Health and physical fitness salons. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 10

16 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan R. Restaurants, clubs and other drinking establishments which provide food or drink for consumption on the premises, excluding drive-in restaurants. Statement of Property Rights Appraised This appraisal is made of the fee simple interest in the subject property but assumes that the property is subject to liens, restrictions, or encumbrances of record as divulged to the appraiser, and also subject to typical mortgage financing as secured by a prospective purchaser in the current market. It is assumed that all necessary easements for roadways, access right-of-way, storm drainage, utilities, and any other necessary easements required to continue utilizing the property by the present use are currently existing and available for continued use. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 11

17 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Scope of the Appraisal The subject property and improvements were viewed on April 8, Mr. Rod Weersing, Assistant Manager for Georgetown Township provided additional information on the subject property. General Data Information pertaining to the subject property, zoning data and tax information was obtained from the Georgetown Township website. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Publication for Flood Hazard Map was reviewed. A copy of the zoning map and restrictions are included in the addendum of this report. Other sources of information were obtained from government agencies, various publications, and state agencies. Site and Property Descriptions Valuation and Analysis Cost approach The description of the property is based on visit to the sites, Georgetown Township records, Ottawa County and Ottawa County GIS Websites, survey by Prein & Newhof and information provided by Mr. Weersing. The site and neighborhood data were analyzed to determine the highest and best use of the subject sites, as vacant. All three approaches to value were considered; however, the final opinion of value is based on the sales comparison approach. The cost approach employs the use of the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service in determining the reproduction cost new for the subject property. The estimates of depreciation were obtained from the market data sales, as well as the cost manual. To estimate the total accrued depreciation from the market, it is necessary to subtract the estimated land value from the sale price, to arrive at the depreciated value of the improvements. The reproduction cost is then estimated for the improvements. The difference between the estimated cost of the improvements and the depreciated value of the improvements gives the total depreciation. The total depreciation is then divided by the reproduction cost new to arrive at the percentage of depreciation. To obtain the percentage of A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 12

18 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan depreciation on a per annum basis, the age of the building is divided into the total percentage of depreciation. The value of the site, as vacant, is determined by researching vacant land sales in this and competing markets. The sum of the depreciated value of the improvements and the market value of the site, as vacant, is the market value opinion from the cost approach. The cost approach is not used in this analysis because the subject properties are vacant land. Sales comparison Income approach Conclusion The sales comparison approach analyzes vacant land sales obtained from commercial real estate brokers, real estate appraisers, and the Ottawa and Kent Counties Bureaus of Equalization. In addition to sales, current listings were considered in this analysis. The research included vacant commercial land sales in Ottawa and Kent Counties with the expanded area being West Michigan. The time period was from January 1, 2010 to the present. Each of the properties used in this analysis were visited. The sources of information were initially obtained through CAR, SWMRIC, Realtors, real estate appraisers and market participants. This data was verified through one of the parties involved in the transaction, Realtor, county website or data obtained in the register of deeds. The income capitalization approach requires the collection of data in regard to market rents and capitalization rates for similar properties. The subject property is vacant land and is not subject to a lease. The income approach is not used in this analysis with adequate support for the final opinion of value from the sales comparison approach. The strengths and weaknesses of the data obtained in the sales comparison approach to value are reconciled with the appraiser's experience and judgment to reach a final opinion of value. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 13

19 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Purpose of the Appraisal The purpose of the appraisal is to determine the market value of the subject property for internal use purposes. Market value is defined as follows: 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 and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in 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 best interests; A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; Payment is made in terms of cash in United States 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. 4 (12 C.F.R. Part 34.42(g); 55 Federal Register 34690, August 24, 1990, as amended at 57 Federal Register 12202, April 9, 1992; 59 Federal Register 29499, June 7, 1994). 4 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 4 th Edition, (Appraisal Institute, 2002), Page 177 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 14

20 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Intended Use The intended use and/or function of this appraisal, as stipulated by the assignment, is to establish an opinion of value of the subject property for internal use purposes by Georgetown Township. Subject Property History The subject property was purchased by Georgetown Township with the buildings razed for future development. It is currently listed for sale at $2,788,000 with Colliers International. Statement of Ownership According to the Georgetown Township assessment records, the present owner of the subject property is listed as: Georgetown Charter Township PO Box 769 Jenison, Michigan Date of Appraisal The date of this appraisal is April 24, Effective Date of Value Opinion The subject property was viewed on April 8, 2015, the effective date of value for the subject property. Client and Intended User Client: Intended User: Georgetown Township Mr. Roderick J. Weersing of Georgetown Township A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 15

21 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Market Analysis The subject property is located in Section 13 of Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. G Georgetown Township is located in the eastern side of Ottawa County. Ottawa County extends east from Lake Michigan and is bordered by Kent County to the west, Allegan County to the south and Muskegon County to the north. The major communities in Ottawa County include the cities of Coopersville, Ferrysburg, Grand Haven, Holland, Hudsonville and Zeeland. Major roadways in Ottawa County include I-96, I-196, US-31 and M-6. The immediate area is developed with residential and multi-family property. This area includes the westerly portion of Georgetown Township near the intersection of Port Sheldon and 28 th Avenue. Other major thoroughfares include Chicago Drive, Baldwin Avenue, and Cottonwood Drive The overall population in Ottawa County has seen growth between 2010 and 2014 with an estimated 2014 population of 276,292. The population increase was approximately 4.7% from 2010 to Georgetown Township has seen a minor increase with a population estimated at 46,746 in 2011 and 41,658 in The number of households in 2011 was 16,617 with the median household income at $63,572. The median home value is $157,800 with many options to buy above and below that price point. The unemployment rate for Ottawa County as of February 2015 was 3.7% which is a decline from 6.1% in February Ottawa County s economic base consists of jobs in manufacturing, tourism and recreation. The county contains a network of small city centers that are all within a short drive of each other. The Lake Michigan shoreline contains many summer residences and vacation homes. Major area attractions include the Holland Tulip Festival, Holland Farmer s market, the Grand Haven musical fountain and the local beaches. Single-family residential properties in the Georgetown Township area sold in the $62,000 to $642,000+ price range between April 2014 and April The homes are typically new to 70+ years old. There were 591 home sales between April 2014 and April SWMRIC showed 76 active or pending listings as of April 2015 indicating an approximate a one and a half month inventory. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 16

22 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Other development in the area includes apartments and single-family condominiums. The condominium market is slower but has grown in this township meeting the needs of an expanding retiring age group and developments catering to younger adults. The demand for apartments has been very strong the last two years. There has been some commercial development in the area since Larger commercial properties include Meijer which is located at Baldwin and Chicago Drive and is the area's largest local retailer. There has been construction on Cottonwood Drive and along Chicago Drive which includes a Culver s restaurant, Lake Michigan Credit Union, multi-tenant commercial building and remodeling of multi-tenant shopping centers. In addition to commercial retail, there are office buildings along Cottonwood and Baldwin Drive which have been built in the last six years. There is some new development in the subject area with some of the businesses including McDonalds, Taco Bell, KFC, At Home Décor, Payless Shoe Store, Culvers, Auto Zone, Thrift Store, and Gordon Food Services. Other uses include office, restaurant and retail uses. This area has been impacted by the development at Rivertown Crossings Mall. That area has attracted a larger number of national retailers with the most recent being Cabela s and Target. The subject location is a high traffic area but lacks the prominent national stores to attract higher end retail stores. This has and will impact development of the subject corridor. Other factors include downsizing and mergers by national companies requiring less square footage and eliminating underperforming stores. One of the more recent examples of this is the merger of Office Depot and Office Max which are now being acquired by Staples. This will result in further store closings making commercial development for many locations more difficult. This scenario has played out throughout West Michigan including the development along M-6 which has attracted a lot of new development but negatively impacted the development, rental rates and occupancy rates of older commercial locations. New commercial development is occurring to the south along Balsam Drive including multi-tenant retail buildings, office buildings and a Mr. Burger restaurant. This area is identified as the Elmwood Commerce Center which is a Great Lakes Development project. The majority of office buildings are located on the north side of Baldwin, along Cottonwood Drive, and at the intersection of 20 th Avenue and Baldwin. A large percentage of this office space is medical or dental offices. The demand for office rental space has shown signs of improvement, with the demand for owner-occupied office buildings increasing due to moderate interest rates. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 17

23 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Industrial development in the Jenison and Hudsonville area has grown over the past decade with little new development. Georgetown Industrial Park is sold out, with some vacant sites held by individual owners or investors. Most of the buildings in this area are in the 5,000 to 40,000 square foot range and are typically less than 10 years of age. The park is located just north of Chicago Drive which is a major thoroughfare connecting Grand Rapids and Holland. Some of the businesses in the park include Tooling Technologies, Schepers Lawn Sprinkling, Dienetics, Lurtsema, Elenbaas Hardwood, Larry Berghorst Drywall, and Grand Rapids Auto Auction. The closest industrial development is located in Hudsonville, north and south of I-196, Gezon Parkway in Wyoming, and Byron Commerce Plat in Byron Township. The demand for industrial land and property has been good with a low inventory of good buildings and strong demand. Reasons for this development include the zoning but primarily the availability of utilities and accessibility to major transportation routes. Industrial development in this area and throughout West Michigan has seen improvement. The demand for smaller high quality industrial space remains high with larger industrial properties requiring larger marketing times. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 18

24 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Site Analysis The subject sites are located at 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive in Section 13 of Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. Site Characteristics Easements Topography Flood Hazard Zoning Site Improvements Landscaping Street Improvements The subject sites consist of acres and are irregular in shape with approximately feet of frontage on Chicago Drive (M- 21) and feet of frontage on Main Street. The configuration of the site and flood way reduces the net usable area to approximately 9.3+/- acres. This is an extraordinary assumption. The subject property has the typical utility and street easements. The topography of the site is level with access and exposure to Chicago Drive. The subject property appears to be adequately drained with the exception along the east line near Rush Creek. This area reduces the net usable area of this site. The subject property is located in a Zone AE according to InterFlood s community panel number 26139C0268E dated December 16, A copy of the flood hazard map is included in the addendum of this report. The subject property is located in a "CS", Community Service Commercial according to the Georgetown Township zoning records. A copy of the zoning ordinance and map is included in the addendum of this report. Improvements include an asphalt driveway approach and asphalt paving on portions of the site. None Chicago Drive (M-21) is a divided four-lane street which runs east and west through Georgetown Township. The site has a curb cut from Chicago Drive and Main Street for access to the subject property. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 19

25 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Utilities Conclusion The subject property is serviced by public sewer and water, natural gas and electricity. The subject site contains acres of land with an estimated usable area of 9.3 acres. The present improvements are considered to be consistent with surrounding land use patterns. There are no known adverse encroachments or surrounding land uses which would negatively impact the present improvements to the site. The site has access from Chicago Drive, with no known adverse soil and/or subsoil conditions. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 20

26 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Highest and Best Use Analysis Understanding the interaction of buyers and sellers in the market is vitally important in determining the highest and best use of the site, as vacant, and also the highest and best use of the property. "Highest and Best use is defined as the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, that is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity. Alternatively, the probable use of land or improved propertyspecific with respect to the user and timing of the use-that is adequately supported and results in the highest present value." 5 The highest and best use of the site is determined by competitive forces within the market. The four areas I will consider are: Legal Permissibility Physical Possibility Financial Feasibility Maximal Productivity Highest and Best Use, As Vacant Legal permissibility: As shown in the zoning section of this report, the subject property is located in an "CS", Community Service Commercial. This conforms to surrounding land use patterns, zoning restrictions, and is consistent with the development trends in this area. According to the zoning ordinance of the Georgetown Township, the restrictions limit the potential development to the commercial uses as outlined in the zoning section of this report. 5 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5 th Edition., (Appraisal Institute, 2010), Page 93 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 21

27 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Physical possibility: The physical characteristics of the site that impact the potential uses include location, street frontage, size and shape of the site, topography, access to the street, availability of utilities, easements, flood plain, and soil and/or subsoil conditions. Chicago Drive is a divided four-lane street which provides exposure and access for the subject property. The site has access from Main Street. The size of the site is suitable for a commercial use. The topography of the site is level, with no known adverse soil and/or subsoil conditions. The visibility of the site is considered to be good and typical for a commercial use. Any future development will be set back from Chicago Drive because of the development of all of the out lots. This reduces the visibility of any proposed buildings. Financial feasibility: Maximal productivity: Conclusion: The simplest test for financial feasibility is whether vacant commercial sites in the area have sold for a positive price. There have been very few recent sales of vacant commercial land in the area. A commercial use is considered to be financially feasible. Because of the location, a commercial use is maximally productive. Most of the buildings in the immediate area are used for commercial retail or restaurant uses. The highest and best use of the site, as vacant, is considered to be a commercial or speculative use. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 22

28 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Exposure Time Exposure time is defined as: estimated length of time 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. Comment: Exposure time is a retrospective opinion based on an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. Exposure time is always presumed to occur prior to the effective date of the appraisal. The overall concept of reasonable exposure encompasses not only adequate, sufficient and reasonable time, but also adequate, sufficient and reasonable effort. 6 This estimate is based on 12 months USPAP, (Appraisal Standards Board), Page U-3 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 23

29 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Estimate of Marketing Time One of the factors considered in this appraisal is the estimated marketing time. Marketing time is defined as: An opinion of the amount of time it might take to sell a real or personal property interest at the concluded market value level during the period immediately after the effective date of an appraisal. Marketing time differs from exposure time, which is always presumed to precede the effective date of an appraisal. (Advisory Opinion 7 of the Appraisal standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and Statement on Appraisal Standards No. 6, Reasonable Exposure Time in Real Property and Personal Property Market Value Opinions address the determination of reasonable exposure and marketing time.) 7 In estimating the marketing period of the subject property, the sales histories of competing properties and data supplied by the National Association of Realtors were reviewed. Three of the six comparables used in the sales comparison approach were listed at the time of sale or are currently listed. The demand for commercial property has been good in the better locations with minimal demand in secondary locations. The strong economy and availability of credit have improved the demand for vacant commercial land in good locations. The following grid is a summary of the marketing time for sales used in the sales comparison approach: Summary of Days on Market Address Listing Listing Marketing Sale Price Sale Date Price Date Time 3385 Highland Drive NA $3,450,000 NA 10/11 NA th Street, SW NA $4,798,624 NA 07/14 NA th Street, SW $1,495,000 $1,350,000 Expired 08/13 NA 2333 East Beltline, NE $2,400,000 $2,400,000 03/14 01/ mos 4235 Alpine Avenue, NW $675,000 $440,000 03/12 04/14 4+ years 315 Lake Michigan Dr. $3,000,000 NA NA Listing NA The estimated marketing period is up to 12 months. 7 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5 th Edition, (Appraisal Institute, 2010), Page 121 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 24

30 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan The Valuation Process In appraising the subject property, three methods are available to your appraiser for estimating market value. The methods provide a systematic and analytical approach to solving the appraisal problem and form a blueprint for gathering data, comparing data to the subject, and obtaining results in the form of a market indicated and supported estimate of value. The methods of valuation are as follows: The cost approach is based on the understanding that market participants relate value to cost. In the cost approach, the value of a property is derived by adding the estimated value of the land to the current cost of constructing a reproduction or replacement for the improvements and then subtracting the amount of depreciation (i.e. deterioration and obsolescence) in the structures from all causes. Entrepreneurial profit may be included in the value indication. This approach is particularly useful in valuing new to nearly new improvements and properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market. Cost approach techniques can also be employed to derive information needed in the sales comparison approach and income capitalization approaches to value, such as the costs to cure items of deferred maintenance. The current cost to construct the improvements can be obtained from cost estimators, cost manuals, builders, and contractors. Depreciation is measured through market research and the application of specific procedures. Land value is estimated separately in the cost approach. The sales comparison approach is most useful when a number of similar properties have recently been sold or are currently for sale in the subject property s market. Using this approach, an appraiser produces a value indication by comparing the subject property with similar properties, called comparable sales. The sale prices of the properties that are judged to be most comparable tend to indicate a range in which the value indication for the subject property will fall. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 25

31 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan The appraiser estimates the degree of similarity or difference between the subject property and the comparable sales by considering various elements of comparison: Real property rights conveyed Financing terms Conditions of sale Expenditures made immediately after purchase Market conditions Location Physical characteristics Economic characteristics Use Non-realty components of value Dollar or percentage adjustments are then applied to the sale price of each comparable property (assuming the same real property interest is involved). Adjustments are made to the sale prices of the comparables because the prices of these properties are known, while the value of the subject property is not. Through this comparative procedure, the appraiser estimates the value defined in the problem identification as of a specific date. Factors such as income multipliers and capitalization rates may also be extracted through sales comparison analysis. In the sales comparison approach, appraisers consider these rates, but do not regard them as elements of comparison. These factors are usually applied in the income capitalization approach. In the income capitalization approach, the present value of the future benefits of property ownership is measured. A property s income streams and resale value upon reversion may be capitalized into a current, lump-sum value. There are two methods of income capitalization: direct capitalization and yield capitalization, or discounted cash flow analysis. Source: The Appraisal of Real Estate, Thirteenth Edition A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 26

32 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Sales Comparison Approach The sales comparison approach is defined as: "The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing market information for similar properties with the property being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and making qualitative comparisons with or quantitative adjustments to the sale prices (or unit prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on relevant, market-derived elements of comparison." 8 The principles of real estate evaluation are used in the direct sales comparison approach. Using these principles, the appraiser ensures that all issues relevant to the valuation have been considered in a consistent manner. In applying the sales comparison approach, the following procedures are followed: 1. Research the competitive market for information on sales transactions, listing and offers to purchase or sell involving properties that are similar to the subject property in terms of characteristics such as property type, date of sale, size, physical condition, location, and land use constraints. The goal is to find a set of comparable sales as similar as possible to the subject property. 2. Verify the information by confirming that the data obtained is factually accurate and that the transactions reflect arm s-length market considerations. Verification may elicit additional information about the market. 3. Select relevant units of comparison (e.g., price per acre, price per square foot, price per front foot) and develop a comparative analysis for each unit. The goal here is to define and identify a unit of comparison that explains market behavior. 8 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5 th Edition, (Appraisal Institute, 2010), Page 174 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 27

33 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan 4. Look for differences between the comparable sale properties and the subject property using the elements of comparison. Then adjust the price of each sale property to reflect how it differs from the subject property or eliminate that property as a comparable. This step typically involves using the most comparable sale properties and then adjusting for any remaining differences. 5. Reconcile the various value indications produced from the analysis of comparables into a single value indication or a range of values. 9 In researching the data for this property, the following units of measure are considered: Property rights conveyed Financing Conditions of the sale Market conditions Condition of the comparable sale Location factors 9 The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12 th Edition, (Appraisal Institute, 2001), Page 422 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 28

34 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan In this approach, I gathered sales and current listings of vacant land sales that are comparable to the subject property. The factors considered in analyzing these sales and current listings include ownership; date of sale; terms of sale; location; zoning; site, including the size and utilities available to it. For purposes of this analysis, the most applicable unit price is based on a per acre unit price. The weighted adjusted unit price of the various comparable sales is then used to determine the value of the subject site, as vacant, by multiplying the acreage by the per acre unit price. The resulting indication of value leads to an estimate of the price one might expect to realize for a property similar to the subject. Sales of vacant commercial land deemed most reflective of the subject property are as follows: Sale Summary of Comparable Sales Address Date of Sale Selling Price Unit Price Per Acre Highland Drive 10/11 $3,450,000 $181, th Street, SW 07/14 $4,798,624 $210, th Street, SW 08/13 $1,350,000 $66, East Beltline, NE 01/15 $2,400,000 $279, Alpine Avenue, NW 04/14 $440,000 $52,948 6 Pt of 315 Lake Michigan Dr. Listing $3,000,000 $192,308 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 29

35 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Sales Comparison Adjustment Grid Address Selling Price Subject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5 Sale Chicago Dr Highland Drive th Street, SW th Street, SW 2333 East Beltline, NE 4235 Alpine Avenue, NW 315 Lake Michigan Dr. $3,450,000 $4,798,624 $1,350,000 $2,400,000 $440,000 $3,000,000 Unit Price/Acre $181,770 ADJ $210,374 ADJ $66,144 ADJ $279,070 ADJ $52,948 ADJ $192,308 ADJ Ownership Fee Simple Fee Simple 0% Fee Simple 0% Fee Simple 0% Fee Simple 0% Fee Simple 0% Fee Simple 0% Date of Sale 10/11 0% 07/14 0% 08/13 0% 01/15 0% 04/14 0% Current listing -20% Terms Cash equivalent 0% Cash equivalent 0% Cash 0% Cash equivalent 0% Cash equivalent 0% Current listing 0% Adjusted Sales Price $181,770 $210,374 $66,144 $279,070 $52,948 $153,846 Location Georgetown Twp Hudsonville, city -50% Byron Township -50% Wyoming, city 20% GR Township -60% Alpine Township 0% Walker, city -30% Utilities All public All public 0% All public 0% All public 0% All public 0% All public 0% All public 0% Zoning CS, Comm. HC, Comm. 0% B-2, PUD 0% Commercial 0% NC-PUD 0% C-2 0% C-PUD 0% Acreage % % % % % % Site Level/slope Level -10% Level/rolling -10% Level -10% Level/slope -10% Level/hill 40% Level -10% Qualititive Rating Superior Superior Inferior Superior Inferior Superior Adjusted Unit Price $90,885 $105,187 $79,373 $83,721 $74,128 $92,308 A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 30

36 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan The vacant land sales used in this approach to value sold on a unit price of $52,948 to $279,070 per acre. Factors considered in the adjustment process include terms of the sale, location of the property, zoning, and the frontage. Property rights Conditions of sale Market conditions Location factors Financing Zoning Utilities Site characteristics All of the sales were sold on a fee simple basis. No adjustments are necessary. Because all of the sales were arm s-length transactions, no adjustments are required. The sales occurred between October 2011 and January No adjustment is required for the date of sale or market conditions. Sales 1, 2, 4 and 6 are superior locations and are adjusted downward. Sale 3 is in an inferior location and is adjusted upward. Sale 5 is similar to the subject location and does not require an adjustment. The adjustment for this factor is based on the rent differential. Sales 1, 2, 4 and 6 have newer and more prominent commercial establishments which attract higher end retail stores commanding higher rents. Typically the better locations have rents in the $18+ per square foot range, triple net for new construction. The sales are similar in terms with no adjustments required. The sales are zoned for commercial uses and do not require an adjustment. The sales have similar public utilities and do not require adjustments. The sites for the comparable sales vary in size to the subject. No adjustment is required for Sales 4, 5 and 6. Sales 1, 2 and 3 are larger sites and are adjusted upward. A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 31

37 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan The site characteristics for Sales 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are superior to the subject and are adjusted downward. Sale 5 has a large hill which reduced the net usable area of the site resulting in a larger positive adjustment. The subject property includes acres but due to the configuration of the land and flood plain the net usable area is reduced. Adjusted rates The range in the adjusted rates is $74,128 to $105,187 per acre, with an average of $87,600 per acre. The range in value based on these sales is $689,000 to $978,000. Sale 3 is the most similar in location to the subject property because it is not as prominent a location with similarities to the subject property. Sale 2 is being improved with the Tanger Outlet Mall. This property will include 371,750 square feet of space which when divided into the sale price for the land is $12.90 per square foot. Sale 3 will be developed with a Walmart and an estimated square footage of 183,000 square feet or $7.38 per square foot. This difference in the unit price per square footage of building area shows the impact that location and density of use has on the value of the site, as vacant. The indicated value of the subject site, as vacant, is based on $90,000 per acre. This is multiplied by 9.3 acres of land, for a total rounded to $840,000. The final opinion of value will be impacted by the net usable land area of the site. The Indicated Value from the Sales Comparison Approach Is: Eight Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($840,000) A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 32

38 Reconciliation and Final Value Conclusion 170, 174 and 302 Chicago Drive Jenison, Michigan Value Indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach Market Value: $840,000 All three approaches were considered; however, only the sales comparison approach and income approach to value were utilized. The cost approach was not used because of the age of the building with adequate data from the sales comparison approach to determine the final opinion of value. The sales comparison approach analyzes vacant commercial land sales in Kent and Ottawa County with necessary adjustments made. Data obtained from these sales provide a range in the adjusted unit prices from $74,127 to $105,187 per acre, with an average of $87,600 per acre. The value of the site is based on $90,000 per acre multiplied by 9.3 acres of the estimated net usable area and rounded to $840,000. This is a realistic figure for this type of property given its location, size of the site, zoning, and supply and demand factors for vacant commercial land. The subject These types of properties are typically purchased by investors. These factors are reflected in the sales used in the sales comparison approach. The final opinion of value is based solely on the sales comparison approach to value. The Indicated Value of the Subject Property is: Eight Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($840,000) A. Van Stensel and Son, LLC Page 33

39 Addendum

40 Subject Photographs

41 Looking West on Chicago Drive View Looking South at Subject Property

42 View of Subject Property View of Subject Property

43 View Looking east from Subject Property View of Development on Out-Lots

44 Looking east from Subject Property View Looking North from Chicago Drive

45 View of Adjoining Property to West View Looking Northeast from Subject Property

46 Looking East on Chicago Drive

47 Vacant Land Sales Data

48

49 Land Sale 1 Location: Address: Tax Authority: County: 3385 Highland Drive Hudsonville, City of Ottawa County Sales Information: Seller: Duthler Harvey A Trust Buyer: Meijer, Inc. List Price: Not listed Sale Price: $3,450,000 Cash Price: $3,450,000 Terms: Cash equivalent Unit Price: $181, per acre List Date: Not listed Date of Sale: 10/13/2011 Marketing Time: Not available Comments: None.

50 Land Sale 1 Land: Permanent Parcel No.: Zoning: HC, Highway Commercial Acreage/Net: Square Feet/Net: 826,769 Frontage: 420 feet Utilities: All public Comments: The property is irregular in shape and has feet of frontage along 32nd Avenue and 750 feet of frontage along Highland Drive. Highest and Best Use: As Vacant: Commercial Location Description: The property is located near the northwest corner of the intersection of 32nd Avenue and Highland Drive. Source: city of Hudsonville, DJVS, Ottawa County GIS

51 Land Sale 2 Aerial of the new parcel Location: Address: Tax Authority: County: th Street, SW Byron Township Kent County Sales Information: Seller: West Michigan Developers Buyer: Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. List Price: Not available Sale Price: $4,798,624 Cash Price: $4,798,624 Terms: Conventional Unit Price: $210, per acre List Date: Not available Date of Sale: 7/11/2014 Comments: This parcel was spilt/combined. The new parcel number is and is a total of 40 +/- acres. The site is being developed with Tanger Outlet Mall with 371,750 square feet of buidling area.

52 Land Sale 2 Land: Permanent Parcel No.: Zoning: 'B-2 PUD', General Business PUD Acreage/Net: Square Feet/Net: Utilities: All public Comments: None. Highest and Best Use: As Vacant: Commercial Location Description: This property is located on 84th Street just east of Byron Commerce Drive. Source: Private Source, Byron Township, Kent County, KVS

53 Land Sale 3 Location: Address: Tax Authority: County: th Street, SW Wyoming, City of Kent County Sales Information: Seller: VK & W Investors LLC Buyer: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust List Price: Expired listing was for $1,495,000 Sale Price: $1,350,000 Cash Price: $1,350,000 Terms: Conventional Unit Price: $68, per acre List Date: Expired listing Date of Sale: 8/28/2013 Marketing Time: The first listing found expired on 4/1/2011 and was listed for $1,900,000 Comments: According to the listing agent, a small vacant building was on the site at the time of the sale but was razed after purchase.

54 Land Sale 3 Land: Permanent Parcel No.: Zoning: 'B-2', General Business District Acreage/Net: 19.6 Square Feet/Net: 853,776 Frontage: 633 Utilities: All Public Comments: This property is irregular in shape with feet of frontage on 54th Street. The railroad tracks run just to the west of the property. Highest and Best Use: As Vacant: Commercial Location Description: This property is located on 54th Street just east of Fisher Avenue. Source: City of Wyoming, Kent County, Private Source, KVS, Carwm # (Expired listing)

55 Land Sale 4 Location: Address: Tax Authority: County: 2333 East Beltline Avenue, NE Grand Rapids Township Kent County Sales Information: Seller: Rejaf LLC Buyer: 2333 E. Beltline Cost Exchange List Price: $2,400,000 Sale Price: $2,400,000 Cash Price: $2,400,000 Terms: Cash equivalent Unit Price: $279, per acre List Date: 3/18/2014 Date of Sale: 1/29/2015 Marketing Time: 10.4 months Comments: None.

56 Land Sale 4 Land: Permanent Parcel No.: Zoning: 'NC-PUD', Neighborhood Commercial Acreage/Net: 8.6 Square Feet/Net: 374,616 Frontage: 645 feet Utilities: All public Comments: This property is irregular in shape with approximately 645 feet of frontage on East Beltline Avenue. Highest and Best Use: As Vacant: Commercial Location Description: This property is located on East Beltline Avenue just north of Knapp Street. Source: Grand Rapids Township, Carwm # , Kent County, KVS

57 Land Sale 5 Location: Address: Tax Authority: County: 4235 Alpine Avenue NW Alpine Township Kent County Sales Information: Seller: Union Building Corporation Buyer: HBS Development LLC List Price: $675,000 Sale Price: $400,000 Cash Price: $440,000 Terms: Cash equivalent Unit Price: $52,948 per acre List Date: 3/16/2012 Date of Sale: 4/24/2014 Marketing Time: Over four years Comments: This site has been marketed for nearly four years. The property was originally listed at $495,000. The estimated cost to raze the building and removing debris is $40,000.

58 Land Sale 5 Land: Permanent Parcel No.: Zoning: C-2, Commercial Acreage/Net: 8.31 Square Feet/Net: 361,983 Frontage: 210 feet Utilities: All public Comments: There is a large hill to the west of the property, the front 500 feet is zoned commercial and the remainder is agricultural. The property has a 7,800 square foot building on it that was utilzed by the UAW and was razed by the buyer. Highest and Best Use: As Vacant: Commercial Location Description: The property is located west of the intersection of Alpine Avenue and York Creek. Source: CARWM, Alpine Township, DJVS, Damon Root: Broker, Kwekel

59 Land Sale 6 Location: Address: Tax Authority: County: Wilson Avenue, NW, Outlot A Walker, City of Kent County Sales Information: Seller: Goodwill Co Inc Buyer: Current Listing List Price: $3,000,000 Sale Price: Current Listing Cash Price: Current Listing Terms: Current Listing Unit Price: $192, per acre List Date: Not available Date of Sale: Current Listing Marketing Time: Current Listing Comments: The land that is for sale is a portion of a larger parcel. This larger parcel has Meijer located on it. The interest in the site has been for a mid-box retail use.

60 Land Sale 6 Land: Permanent Parcel No.: Zoning: 'CPUD', Commercial Planned Unit Development Acreage/Net: 15.6 Square Feet/Net: 679,536 Utilities: All Public Comments: None Highest and Best Use: As Vacant: Commercial Location Description: This property is located on Wilson Avenue just south of Lake Michigan Drive. Source: City of Walker, Private Source, Kent County, Meijer Reality, KVS

61

62

63 302 Chicago Drive 174 Chicago Drive 170 Chicago Drive

64 Chapter 15 - CS - COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMERCIAL SEC PURPOSE SEC PERMITTED USES SEC USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL SEC DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC SIGNS SEC OFF-STREET PARKING SEC OFF-STREET LOADING Sec 15.1 PURPOSE. This District is intended to provide for the construction or continued use of land for general community-wide commercial and service uses and to provide for orderly development and concentration of such uses to satisfy the needs of the overall community. This District is meant to discourage strip or linear commercial development. Sec PERMITTED USES. Land and/or buildings in this District may be used for the following purposes by right: (A) Any permitted use in the NS District. (B) Any Retail Business whose principal activity is the sale of merchandise within an enclosed building. (C) Service establishments including printing, publishing, photo reproduction, blue-printing, and related trades or arts. (D) Assembly buildings including dance pavilions, auditoriums, churches, and private clubs. (E) Public or private business schools or colleges. (F) Municipal buildings and service installations. (G) Public utility buildings and service installations. (H) Health and physical fitness salons. (I) Restaurants, clubs and other drinking establishments which provide food or drink for consumption on the premises, excluding drive-in restaurants. Sec USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL. The following uses may be permitted by obtaining Special Land Use Approval when all applicable standards as cited in Chapter XX are met. (A) Drive-in establishments including restaurants, banks, dry cleaning pick-up stations and other similar uses. (B) Open air businesses. (C) Vehicle service stations and wash establishments. (D) Mortuaries and funeral homes. (E) Commercial recreation facilities such as indoor theaters, bowling alleys, indoor skating rinks, billiard parlors or similar uses. (F) Veterinary hospitals, clinics, and kennels.

65 (G) Commercial enterprises producing merchandise on the premises to be sold at retail and/or wholesale. (H) Amusement Parks. (I) Warehouses selling retail on the premises, PROVIDED, there is no outside storage or stockpiling and the property does not lie within one hundred (100) feet of any Residential District. (J) Any business or use permitted by right or by special land use approval in the CS Commercial district and having or providing more than two electronic games. (K) Commercial soil removal. (L) Day Care Centers. (M) Commercial radio and television and wireless communication towers. (Revised November 1997) (N) Vehicle repair establishments when all activities are conducted within a wholly enclosed building and provided that such activities do not include collision services, such as body frame or fender straightening and repair; overall painting and vehicle rust-proofing; refinishing or steam cleaning. (revised ) (O) Adult Foster Care Congregate Facility. (revised ) Sec DISTRICT REGULATIONS. As required in Chapter XXIV. Sec SIGNS. As provided in Chapter XXV. Sec OFF-STREET PARKING. Requirements for an allowed use shall be determined from the "Table of Off-Street Parking Requirements" in Chapter XXVI, Section Sec OFF-STREET LOADING. As required in Chapter XXVI, Section

66 Chapter 14 - NS-NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE COMMERCIAL SEC PURPOSE SEC PERMITTED USES SEC USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL SEC DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC SIGNS SEC OFF-STREET PARKING SEC OFF-STREET LOADING Sec PURPOSE. This District is intended to permit local retail business and service uses which are desirable to serve the residential areas of the Township. In order to promote good business development so far as is possible at an appropriate scale to adjoining residential areas, uses are prohibited which would create hazards, offensive and loud noises, vibration, smoke, glare, heavy truck traffic, or late hours of operation. The intent of this District is also to encourage the concentration of business uses, to the mutual advantage of both the consumers and merchants, consistent with the intent of the Township Land Use Plan, and thereby avoid the encouragement of marginal business throughout the community. Sec PERMITTED USES. Land and/or buildings in this District may be used for the following purposes by right: (A) Any permitted use in the OS District. (B) Retail Food Establishments which supply groceries, fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy products, baked goods, confections, or similar commodities for consumption off the premises. Foodstuffs may be prepared or manufactured on the premises as an accessory activity if the sale of the product is limited to the local retail store. (Includes take-out foodno seating) (C) Other Retail Businesses such as drug, variety, dry goods, clothing, notions, music, book, hardware, or furniture stores which supply commodities on the premises. Sec USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL. The following uses may be permitted by obtaining Special Land Use Approval when all applicable standards as cited in Chapter XX are met. (A) Restaurants, not permitting dancing, live entertainment, or the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, and not including drive-in facilities. (B) Mortuaries and funeral homes. (C) Vehicle service stations, maximum four (4) pump islands. (D) Public utility and service buildings not requiring a storage yard. (E) Drive-in establishments including banks, dry cleaning pick-up stations, and other similar uses. (F) Day care centers.

67 (G) Any business or use permitted by right or by special land use approval in the NS Commercial district and having or providing more than two electronic games. (H) Commercial soil removal. (I) Vehicle Wash Establishment (August 6, 1996) (J) Commercial radio and television and wireless communication towers. (Revised November 1997) (K) Churches (Revised April 1998) (L) Adult Foster Care Congregate Facility. (revised ) Sec DISTRICT REGULATIONS. As required in Chapter XXIV. Sec SIGNS. As provided in Chapter XXV. Sec OFF-STREET PARKING. Requirements for an allowed use shall be determined from the "Table of Off-Street Parking Requirements" in Chapter XXVI, Section Sec OFF-STREET LOADING. As required in Chapter XXVI, Section

68 Chapter 13 - OS - OFFICE-SERVICE COMMERCIAL SEC PURPOSE SEC PERMITTED USES SEC USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL SEC DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC SIGNS SEC OFF-STREET PARKING SEC OFF-STREET LOADING Sec PURPOSE. This District is designed to accommodate office uses together with office sales uses and certain personal services. It is the purpose of this district to accommodate permitted uses typically in proximity to major shopping facilities and/or in compatible relationship with the major arterial street system and surrounding land uses. The nature of modern office use development provides greater compatibility for integration into a community structure. Therefore, this District has been established for the purpose of encouraging office and related development, but excluding general commercial activity. Sec PERMITTED USES. Land and/or buildings in this District may be used for the following purposes by right: (A) Office buildings for any of the following occupations: executive, administrative, professional, accounting, writing, clerical, stenographic, drafting, and office equipment and supplies sales. (B) Medical offices including clinics. (C) Banks, credit unions, savings and loan institutions not including drive-in facilities. (D) Personal service establishments which perform personal services on the premises, including barber and beauty shops, interior decorating shops, photographic studios, laundromats or similar uses. (revised 7/25/95) (E) Hospitals, provided, the design standards defined in Chapter XX, shall apply. (F) Commercial schools including art, business, music, dance, professional, and trade. (G) Municipal buildings, exchanges, and public utility offices but not including storage yards, substations, or regulator stations. (H) Accessory buildings and uses as defined in Chapter II. Sec USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL. The following uses may be permitted by obtaining Special Land Use Approval when all applicable standards as cited in Chapter XX are met. (A) Drive-in establishments including banks, dry cleaning pick-up stations and similar personal services, not including drive-in restaurants and vehicle service stations. (B) Restaurants or other establishments serving food and/or beverages but not including driveins. (C) Mortuaries and funeral homes.

69 (D) (E) (F) Any business or use permitted by right or by special land use approval in the OS Commercial district and having or providing more than two electronic games. Commercial soil removal. Commercial radio and television and wireless communication towers. (Revised November 1997) (G) Churches (Revised April 1998) (H) Day care centers (revised ) Sec DISTRICT REGULATIONS. As required in Chapter XXIV. Sec SIGNS. As provided in Chapter XXV. Sec OFF-STREET PARKING. Requirements for an allowed use shall be determined from the "Table of Off-Street Parking Requirements" in Chapter XXVI, Section Sec OFF-STREET LOADING. As required in Chapter XXVI, Section

70 FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FLOOD DATA: USPS Address: 170 Chicago Dr Jenison MI Community Name: Georgetown, Charter Township of Community #: County: Ottawa Census Tract: Flood Zone: AE Zone AE and A1-A30 Zones AE and A1-A30 are the flood insurance rate zones used for the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined for the FIS by detailed methods of analysis. In most instances, BFEs derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals in this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. AE zones are areas of inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood, including areas with the 2-percent wave runup, elevation less than 3.0 feet above the ground, and areas with wave heights less than 3.0 feet. These areas are subdivided into elevation zones with BFEs assigned. The AE zone will generally extend inland to the limit of the 1-percent-annual-chance Stillwater Flood Level (SWEL).

71

72 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 1 mile radius Longitude: Annual Rate Population 6,392 6, % Households 2,595 2, % Housing Units 2,651 3, % Population by Race Number Percent Total 6, % Population Reporting One Race 6, % White 5, % Black % American Indian % Asian % Pacific Islander 3 0.0% Some Other Race % Population Reporting Two or More Races % Total Hispanic Population % Population by Sex Male 2, % Female 3, % Population by Age Total 6, % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age % Age 18+ 4, % Age 65+ 1, % Median Age by Sex and Race/Hispanic Origin Total Population 38.3 Male 33.8 Female 42.8 White Alone 40.6 Black Alone 27.7 American Indian Alone 32.5 Asian Alone 25.6 Pacific Islander Alone 52.5 Some Other Race Alone 24.7 Two or More Races 14.9 Hispanic Population 23.8 Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 1 of 12

73 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 1 mile radius Longitude: Households by Type Total 2, % Households with 1 Person 1, % Households with 2+ People 1, % Family Households 1, % Husband-wife Families 1, % With Own Children % Other Family (No Spouse Present) % With Own Children % Nonfamily Households % All Households with Children % Multigenerational Households % Unmarried Partner Households % Male-female % Same-sex % Average Household Size 2.15 Family Households by Size Total 1, % 2 People % 3 People % 4 People % 5 People % 6 People % 7+ People % Average Family Size 2.87 Nonfamily Households by Size Total 1, % 1 Person 1, % 2 People % 3 People % 4 People 4 0.3% 5 People 1 0.1% 6 People 0 0.0% 7+ People 0 0.0% Average Nonfamily Size 1.12 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 6, % In Households 6, % In Family Households 4, % Householder 1, % Spouse 1, % Child 1, % Other relative % Nonrelative % In Nonfamily Households 1, % In Group Quarters % Institutionalized Population 0 0.0% Noninstitutionalized Population % Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 2 of 12

74 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 1 mile radius Longitude: Family Households by Age of Householder Total 1, % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age % Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 1, % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age % Households by Race of Householder Total 2, % Householder is White Alone 2, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Households with Hispanic Householder % Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 1, % Householder is White Alone 1, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone 3 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder % Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total % Householder is White Alone % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone 4 1.0% Householder is Asian Alone 9 2.3% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.3% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 8 2.1% Householder is Two or More Races % Other Families with Hispanic Householder % Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 1, % Householder is White Alone 1, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone 3 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone 8 0.6% Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 0 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 8 0.6% Householder is Two or More Races % Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 3 of 12

75 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 1 mile radius Longitude: Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 3, % Occupied Housing Units 2, % Vacant Housing Units For Rent % Rented, not Occupied 8 0.3% For Sale Only % Sold, not Occupied 5 0.2% For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use 8 0.3% For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant % Total Vacancy Rate 5.8% Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 2, % Owner Occupied 1, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 1, % Owned Free and Clear % Average Household Size 2.44 Renter Occupied 1, % Average Household Size 1.80 Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 1, % Householder is White Alone 1, % Householder is Black Alone 7 0.4% Householder is American Indian Alone 5 0.3% Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone 6 0.4% Householder is Two or More Races % Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 1, % Householder is White Alone 1, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone 5 0.4% Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 0 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.12 Householder is Black Alone 2.35 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.30 Householder is Asian Alone 2.97 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 3.00 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 2.87 Householder is Two or More Races 2.78 Householder is Hispanic 2.92 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 4 of 12

76 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 3 mile radius Longitude: Annual Rate Population 43,670 44, % Households 15,837 17, % Housing Units 16,250 17, % Population by Race Number Percent Total 44, % Population Reporting One Race 43, % White 41, % Black % American Indian % Asian % Pacific Islander % Some Other Race % Population Reporting Two or More Races % Total Hispanic Population 1, % Population by Sex Male 21, % Female 22, % Population by Age Total 44, % Age 0-4 2, % Age 5-9 2, % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age 85+ 1, % Age , % Age 65+ 7, % Median Age by Sex and Race/Hispanic Origin Total Population 37.9 Male 35.9 Female 40.0 White Alone 39.3 Black Alone 29.3 American Indian Alone 30.0 Asian Alone 26.8 Pacific Islander Alone 45.0 Some Other Race Alone 25.3 Two or More Races 14.7 Hispanic Population 22.7 Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 5 of 12

77 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 3 mile radius Longitude: Households by Type Total 17, % Households with 1 Person 3, % Households with 2+ People 13, % Family Households 12, % Husband-wife Families 10, % With Own Children 4, % Other Family (No Spouse Present) 2, % With Own Children 1, % Nonfamily Households % All Households with Children 5, % Multigenerational Households % Unmarried Partner Households % Male-female % Same-sex % Average Household Size 2.59 Family Households by Size Total 12, % 2 People 5, % 3 People 2, % 4 People 2, % 5 People 1, % 6 People % 7+ People % Average Family Size 3.08 Nonfamily Households by Size Total 4, % 1 Person 3, % 2 People % 3 People % 4 People % 5 People 9 0.2% 6 People 2 0.0% 7+ People 1 0.0% Average Nonfamily Size 1.19 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 44, % In Households 44, % In Family Households 38, % Householder 12, % Spouse 10, % Child 14, % Other relative % Nonrelative % In Nonfamily Households 5, % In Group Quarters % Institutionalized Population % Noninstitutionalized Population % Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 6 of 12

78 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 3 mile radius Longitude: Family Households by Age of Householder Total 12, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age 75+ 1, % Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 4, % Householder Age , % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age % Householder Age 75+ 1, % Households by Race of Householder Total 17, % Householder is White Alone 16, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 6 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Households with Hispanic Householder % Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 10, % Householder is White Alone 10, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 3 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder % Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 2, % Householder is White Alone 1, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Other Families with Hispanic Householder % Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 4, % Householder is White Alone 4, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone 9 0.2% Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 7 of 12

79 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 3 mile radius Longitude: Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 17, % Occupied Housing Units 17, % Vacant Housing Units For Rent % Rented, not Occupied % For Sale Only % Sold, not Occupied % For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use % For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant % Total Vacancy Rate 4.7% Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 17, % Owner Occupied 13, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 9, % Owned Free and Clear 4, % Average Household Size 2.73 Renter Occupied 3, % Average Household Size 2.09 Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 13, % Householder is White Alone 13, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 4 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 3, % Householder is White Alone 3, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder % Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.58 Householder is Black Alone 2.54 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.68 Householder is Asian Alone 3.32 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.67 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 3.11 Householder is Two or More Races 3.03 Householder is Hispanic 3.16 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 8 of 12

80 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 5 mile radius Longitude: Annual Rate Population 110, , % Households 40,838 43, % Housing Units 42,089 46, % Population by Race Number Percent Total 117, % Population Reporting One Race 114, % White 102, % Black 4, % American Indian % Asian 2, % Pacific Islander % Some Other Race 4, % Population Reporting Two or More Races 2, % Total Hispanic Population 10, % Population by Sex Male 57, % Female 59, % Population by Age Total 117, % Age 0-4 8, % Age 5-9 8, % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age , % Age 85+ 2, % Age , % Age , % Median Age by Sex and Race/Hispanic Origin Total Population 34.2 Male 33.1 Female 35.5 White Alone 36.2 Black Alone 26.8 American Indian Alone 29.6 Asian Alone 30.2 Pacific Islander Alone 40.0 Some Other Race Alone 24.8 Two or More Races 14.3 Hispanic Population 23.2 Data Note: Hispanic population can be of any race. Census 2010 medians are computed from reported data distributions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 9 of 12

81 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 5 mile radius Longitude: Households by Type Total 43, % Households with 1 Person 10, % Households with 2+ People 33, % Family Households 31, % Husband-wife Families 24, % With Own Children 10, % Other Family (No Spouse Present) 6, % With Own Children 3, % Nonfamily Households 2, % All Households with Children 15, % Multigenerational Households 1, % Unmarried Partner Households 2, % Male-female 2, % Same-sex % Average Household Size 2.65 Family Households by Size Total 31, % 2 People 12, % 3 People 6, % 4 People 6, % 5 People 3, % 6 People 1, % 7+ People % Average Family Size 3.16 Nonfamily Households by Size Total 12, % 1 Person 10, % 2 People 2, % 3 People % 4 People % 5 People % 6 People 7 0.1% 7+ People 2 0.0% Average Nonfamily Size 1.24 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 117, % In Households 116, % In Family Households 100, % Householder 31, % Spouse 24, % Child 39, % Other relative 2, % Nonrelative 2, % In Nonfamily Households 15, % In Group Quarters % Institutionalized Population % Noninstitutionalized Population % Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Average family size excludes nonrelatives. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 10 of 12

82 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 5 mile radius Longitude: Family Households by Age of Householder Total 31, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age 75+ 2, % Nonfamily Households by Age of Householder Total 12, % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age , % Householder Age 75+ 2, % Households by Race of Householder Total 43, % Householder is White Alone 39, % Householder is Black Alone 1, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone % Householder is Some Other Race Alone 1, % Householder is Two or More Races % Households with Hispanic Householder 2, % Husband-wife Families by Race of Householder Total 24, % Householder is White Alone 23, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 7 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Husband-wife Families with Hispanic Householder 1, % Other Families (No Spouse) by Race of Householder Total 6, % Householder is White Alone 5, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 1 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Other Families with Hispanic Householder % Nonfamily Households by Race of Householder Total 12, % Householder is White Alone 11, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 7 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Nonfamily Households with Hispanic Householder % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 11 of 12

83 2010 Census Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 5 mile radius Longitude: Total Housing Units by Occupancy Total 46, % Occupied Housing Units 43, % Vacant Housing Units For Rent % Rented, not Occupied % For Sale Only % Sold, not Occupied % For Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use % For Migrant Workers 2 0.0% Other Vacant % Total Vacancy Rate 5.2% Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 43, % Owner Occupied 32, % Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 22, % Owned Free and Clear 9, % Average Household Size 2.81 Renter Occupied 11, % Average Household Size 2.23 Owner-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 32, % Householder is White Alone 30, % Householder is Black Alone % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 7 0.0% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Owner-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 1, % Renter-occupied Housing Units by Race of Householder Total 11, % Householder is White Alone 9, % Householder is Black Alone 1, % Householder is American Indian Alone % Householder is Asian Alone % Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 8 0.1% Householder is Some Other Race Alone % Householder is Two or More Races % Renter-occupied Housing Units with Hispanic Householder 1, % Average Household Size by Race/Hispanic Origin of Householder Householder is White Alone 2.61 Householder is Black Alone 2.53 Householder is American Indian Alone 2.67 Householder is Asian Alone 3.25 Householder is Pacific Islander Alone 2.27 Householder is Some Other Race Alone 3.64 Householder is Two or More Races 2.98 Householder is Hispanic 3.46 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. April 03, Esri Page 12 of 12

84 Demographic and Income Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 1 mile radius Longitude: Summary Census Population 6,377 6,459 6,684 Households 2,964 3,057 3,199 Families 1,679 1,699 1,753 Average Household Size Owner Occupied Housing Units 1,598 1,592 1,681 Renter Occupied Housing Units 1,366 1,465 1,518 Median Age Trends: Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.69% 0.10% 0.73% Households 0.91% 0.17% 0.75% Families 0.63% 0.02% 0.66% Owner HHs 1.09% 0.16% 0.69% Median Household Income 1.63% 2.95% 2.74% Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent <$15, % % $15,000 - $24, % % $25,000 - $34, % % $35,000 - $49, % % $50,000 - $74, % % $75,000 - $99, % % $100,000 - $149, % % $150,000 - $199, % % $200, % % Median Household Income $37,448 $40,596 Average Household Income $47,868 $51,801 Per Capita Income $21,988 $24,013 Census Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 1, % 1, % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Census Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 5, % 5, % 6, % Black Alone % % % American Indian Alone % % % Asian Alone % % % Pacific Islander Alone 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 3 0.0% Some Other Race Alone % % % Two or More Races % % % Hispanic Origin (Any Race) % % % Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and April 03, Esri Page 1 of 6

85 Demographic and Income Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 1 mile radius Longitude: Trends Annual Rate (in percent) Area State USA 0 Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income Population by Age Percent Household Income $25K - $34K 12.6% $15K - $24K 22.2% <$15K 11.7% 2014 Population by Race $35K - $49K 16.1% $150K - $199K 1.2% $100K $200K+ - $149K 0.8% 4.9% $75K - $99K 8.8% Percent $50K - $74K 21.7% 0 White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two Percent Hispanic Origin: 5.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and April 03, Esri Page 2 of 6

86 Demographic and Income Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 3 mile radius Longitude: Summary Census Population 44,534 44,529 45,554 Households 17,083 17,275 17,772 Families 12,373 12,389 12,649 Average Household Size Owner Occupied Housing Units 13,336 13,310 13,717 Renter Occupied Housing Units 3,747 3,966 4,054 Median Age Trends: Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.46% 0.10% 0.73% Households 0.57% 0.17% 0.75% Families 0.42% 0.02% 0.66% Owner HHs 0.60% 0.16% 0.69% Median Household Income 2.17% 2.95% 2.74% Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent <$15,000 1, % 1, % $15,000 - $24,999 2, % 1, % $25,000 - $34,999 1, % 1, % $35,000 - $49,999 2, % 2, % $50,000 - $74,999 4, % 4, % $75,000 - $99,999 2, % 3, % $100,000 - $149,999 1, % 2, % $150,000 - $199, % % $200, % % Median Household Income $53,714 $59,796 Average Household Income $66,161 $72,745 Per Capita Income $25,728 $28,407 Census Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0-4 2, % 2, % 3, % 5-9 2, % 2, % 3, % , % 2, % 3, % , % 2, % 2, % , % 2, % 2, % , % 6, % 6, % , % 5, % 5, % , % 5, % 5, % , % 5, % 5, % , % 3, % 4, % , % 2, % 2, % 85+ 1, % 1, % 1, % Census Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 41, % 41, % 42, % Black Alone % % % American Indian Alone % % % Asian Alone % % % Pacific Islander Alone % % % Some Other Race Alone % % % Two or More Races % % 1, % Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 1, % 2, % 2, % Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and April 03, Esri Page 3 of 6

87 Demographic and Income Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 3 mile radius Longitude: Trends Annual Rate (in percent) Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income Area State USA Population by Age Percent Household Income $35K - $49K 15.0% $50K - $74K 24.9% $25K - $34K 10.3% $15K - $24K 11.8% <$15K 7.5% $200K+ 2.0% $150K - $199K 2.5% $100K - $149K 9.5% 2014 Population by Race Percent $75K - $99K 16.6% 0 White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two Percent Hispanic Origin: 4.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and April 03, Esri Page 4 of 6

88 Demographic and Income Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 5 mile radius Longitude: Summary Census Population 117, , ,501 Households 43,916 44,933 46,704 Families 31,195 31,621 32,638 Average Household Size Owner Occupied Housing Units 32,015 32,186 33,467 Renter Occupied Housing Units 11,901 12,747 13,237 Median Age Trends: Annual Rate Area State National Population 0.73% 0.10% 0.73% Households 0.78% 0.17% 0.75% Families 0.64% 0.02% 0.66% Owner HHs 0.78% 0.16% 0.69% Median Household Income 2.05% 2.95% 2.74% Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent <$15,000 4, % 3, % $15,000 - $24,999 4, % 3, % $25,000 - $34,999 4, % 3, % $35,000 - $49,999 6, % 6, % $50,000 - $74,999 11, % 11, % $75,000 - $99,999 6, % 8, % $100,000 - $149,999 4, % 5, % $150,000 - $199,999 1, % 1, % $200, % 1, % Median Household Income $52,727 $58,359 Average Household Income $64,164 $70,738 Per Capita Income $24,234 $26,749 Census Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0-4 8, % 8, % 9, % 5-9 8, % 8, % 8, % , % 8, % 8, % , % 7, % 7, % , % 8, % 7, % , % 17, % 18, % , % 14, % 16, % , % 15, % 14, % , % 13, % 14, % , % 8, % 9, % , % 4, % 5, % 85+ 2, % 2, % 2, % Census Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 102, % 103, % 105, % Black Alone 4, % 4, % 4, % American Indian Alone % % % Asian Alone 2, % 2, % 2, % Pacific Islander Alone % % % Some Other Race Alone 4, % 5, % 6, % Two or More Races 2, % 3, % 3, % Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 10, % 11, % 13, % Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and April 03, Esri Page 5 of 6

89 Demographic and Income Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Ring: 5 mile radius Longitude: Trends Annual Rate (in percent) Area State USA 0 Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income Population by Age Percent Household Income 2014 Population by Race $35K - $49K 15.3% $25K - $34K 10.0% $15K - $24K 11.1% <$15K 9.4% $200K+ 1.8% $150K - $199K 2.5% Percent $50K - $74K 25.1% $100K - $149K 9.3% $75K - $99K 15.5% 0 White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two Percent Hispanic Origin: 9.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and April 03, Esri Page 6 of 6

90 Population Executive Summary 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles 2000 Population 6,392 43, , Population 6,377 44, , Population 6,459 44, , Population 6,684 45, , Annual Rate -0.02% 0.20% 0.59% Annual Rate 0.30% 0.00% 0.39% Annual Rate 0.69% 0.46% 0.73% 2014 Male Population 46.0% 48.5% 48.8% 2014 Female Population 54.0% 51.5% 51.2% 2014 Median Age In the identified area, the current year population is 119,082. In 2010, the Census count in the area was 117,111. The rate of change since 2010 was 0.39% annually. The five-year projection for the population in the area is 123,501 representing a change of 0.73% annually from 2014 to Currently, the population is 48.8% male and 51.2% female. Median Age The median age in this area is 38.9, compared to U.S. median age of Race and Ethnicity 2014 White Alone 91.8% 93.1% 86.8% 2014 Black Alone 2.0% 1.6% 3.6% 2014 American Indian/Alaska Native Alone 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 2014 Asian Alone 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% 2014 Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2014 Other Race 1.6% 1.3% 4.4% 2014 Two or More Races 2.4% 2.0% 2.7% 2014 Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 5.9% 4.6% 9.9% Persons of Hispanic origin represent 9.9% of the population in the identified area compared to 17.5% of the U.S. population. Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The Diversity Index, which measures the probability that two people from the same area will be from different race/ethnic groups, is 37.9 in the identified area, compared to 62.6 for the U.S. as a whole. Households 2000 Households 2,595 15,837 40, Households 2,964 17,083 43, Total Households 3,057 17,275 44, Total Households 3,199 17,772 46, Annual Rate 1.34% 0.76% 0.73% Annual Rate 0.73% 0.26% 0.54% Annual Rate 0.91% 0.57% 0.78% 2014 Average Household Size The household count in this area has changed from 43,916 in 2010 to 44,933 in the current year, a change of 0.54% annually. The fiveyear projection of households is 46,704, a change of 0.78% annually from the current year total. Average household size is currently 2.64, compared to 2.65 in the year The number of families in the current year is 31,621 in the specified area. Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 1 of 2

91 Median Household Income Executive Summary 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles 2014 Median Household Income $37,448 $53,714 $52, Median Household Income $40,596 $59,796 $58, Annual Rate 1.63% 2.17% 2.05% Average Household Income 2014 Average Household Income $47,868 $66,161 $64, Average Household Income $51,801 $72,745 $70, Annual Rate 1.59% 1.92% 1.97% Per Capita Income 2014 Per Capita Income $21,988 $25,728 $24, Per Capita Income $24,013 $28,407 $26, Annual Rate 1.78% 2.00% 1.99% Households by Income Current median household income is $52,727 in the area, compared to $52,076 for all U.S. households. Median household income is projected to be $58,359 in five years, compared to $59,599 for all U.S. households Current average household income is $64,164 in this area, compared to $72,809 for all U.S. households. Average household income is projected to be $70,738 in five years, compared to $83,937 for all U.S. households Current per capita income is $24,234 in the area, compared to the U.S. per capita income of $27,871. The per capita income is projected to be $26,749 in five years, compared to $32,168 for all U.S. households Housing 2000 Total Housing Units 2,651 16,250 42, Owner Occupied Housing Units 1,634 12,592 29, Renter Occupied Housing Units 961 3,245 10, Vacant Housing Units , Total Housing Units 3,147 17,921 46, Owner Occupied Housing Units 1,598 13,336 32, Renter Occupied Housing Units 1,366 3,747 11, Vacant Housing Units , Total Housing Units 3,184 18,034 47, Owner Occupied Housing Units 1,592 13,310 32, Renter Occupied Housing Units 1,465 3,966 12, Vacant Housing Units , Total Housing Units 3,290 18,473 48, Owner Occupied Housing Units 1,681 13,717 33, Renter Occupied Housing Units 1,518 4,054 13, Vacant Housing Units ,877 Currently, 68.4% of the 47,027 housing units in the area are owner occupied; 27.1%, renter occupied; and 4.5% are vacant. Currently, in the U.S., 56.0% of the housing units in the area are owner occupied; 32.4% are renter occupied; and 11.6% are vacant. In 2010, there were 46,309 housing units in the area % owner occupied, 25.7% renter occupied, and 5.2% vacant. The annual rate of change in housing units since 2010 is 0.69%. Median home value in the area is $147,920, compared to a median home value of $190,791 for the U.S. In five years, median value is projected to change by 3.67% annually to $177,109. Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 2 of 2

92 Population Summary Market Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles 2000 Total Population 6,392 43, , Total Population 6,377 44, , Total Population 6,459 44, , Group Quarters Total Population 6,684 45, , Annual Rate 0.69% 0.46% 0.73% Household Summary 2000 Households 2,595 15,837 40, Average Household Size Households 2,964 17,083 43, Average Household Size Households 3,057 17,275 44, Average Household Size Households 3,199 17,772 46, Average Household Size Annual Rate 0.91% 0.57% 0.78% 2010 Families 1,679 12,373 31, Average Family Size Families 1,699 12,389 31, Average Family Size Families 1,753 12,649 32, Average Family Size Annual Rate 0.63% 0.42% 0.64% Housing Unit Summary 2000 Housing Units 2,651 16,250 42,089 Owner Occupied Housing Units 61.6% 77.5% 71.3% Renter Occupied Housing Units 36.3% 20.0% 25.8% Vacant Housing Units 2.1% 2.5% 3.0% 2010 Housing Units 3,147 17,921 46,309 Owner Occupied Housing Units 50.8% 74.4% 69.1% Renter Occupied Housing Units 43.4% 20.9% 25.7% Vacant Housing Units 5.8% 4.7% 5.2% 2014 Housing Units 3,184 18,034 47,027 Owner Occupied Housing Units 50.0% 73.8% 68.4% Renter Occupied Housing Units 46.0% 22.0% 27.1% Vacant Housing Units 4.0% 4.2% 4.5% 2019 Housing Units 3,290 18,473 48,581 Owner Occupied Housing Units 51.1% 74.3% 68.9% Renter Occupied Housing Units 46.1% 21.9% 27.2% Vacant Housing Units 2.8% 3.8% 3.9% Median Household Income 2014 $37,448 $53,714 $52, $40,596 $59,796 $58,359 Median Home Value 2014 $136,663 $158,643 $147, $169,309 $183,208 $177,109 Per Capita Income 2014 $21,988 $25,728 $24, $24,013 $28,407 $26,749 Median Age Data Note: Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 1 of 7

93 2014 Households by Income Market Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles Household Income Base 3,057 17,275 44,933 <$15, % 7.5% 9.4% $15,000 - $24, % 11.8% 11.1% $25,000 - $34, % 10.3% 10.0% $35,000 - $49, % 15.0% 15.3% $50,000 - $74, % 24.9% 25.1% $75,000 - $99, % 16.6% 15.5% $100,000 - $149, % 9.5% 9.3% $150,000 - $199, % 2.5% 2.5% $200, % 2.0% 1.8% Average Household Income $47,868 $66,161 $64, Households by Income Household Income Base 3,199 17,772 46,704 <$15, % 6.7% 8.6% $15,000 - $24, % 9.1% 8.3% $25,000 - $34, % 8.3% 8.1% $35,000 - $49, % 13.5% 13.9% $50,000 - $74, % 24.6% 25.0% $75,000 - $99, % 19.5% 18.4% $100,000 - $149, % 12.5% 12.2% $150,000 - $199, % 3.2% 3.1% $200, % 2.6% 2.4% Average Household Income $51,801 $72,745 $70, Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 1,592 13,310 32,186 <$50, % 2.4% 3.8% $50,000 - $99, % 11.4% 15.2% $100,000 - $149, % 29.6% 32.3% $150,000 - $199, % 37.6% 29.7% $200,000 - $249, % 11.3% 11.7% $250,000 - $299, % 3.6% 3.9% $300,000 - $399, % 2.9% 2.5% $400,000 - $499, % 0.8% 0.6% $500,000 - $749, % 0.3% 0.2% $750,000 - $999, % 0.0% 0.0% $1,000, % 0.1% 0.1% Average Home Value $138,435 $163,326 $155, Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 1,681 13,717 33,467 <$50, % 1.0% 1.6% $50,000 - $99, % 3.3% 5.4% $100,000 - $149, % 14.8% 23.2% $150,000 - $199, % 46.7% 36.5% $200,000 - $249, % 19.3% 19.2% $250,000 - $299, % 7.0% 7.5% $300,000 - $399, % 5.6% 4.8% $400,000 - $499, % 1.7% 1.3% $500,000 - $749, % 0.5% 0.4% $750,000 - $999, % 0.1% 0.1% $1,000, % 0.1% 0.1% Average Home Value $171,696 $197,476 $187,481 Data Note: Income represents the preceding year, expressed in current dollars. Household income includes wage and salary earnings, interest dividends, net rents, pensions, SSI and welfare payments, child support, and alimony. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 2 of 7

94 2010 Population by Age Market Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles Total 6,380 44, , % 6.7% 7.5% % 6.7% 7.1% % 6.9% 7.3% % 13.8% 14.8% % 12.7% 14.4% % 11.4% 12.3% % 14.2% 14.1% % 11.7% 10.6% % 7.7% 6.1% % 5.6% 4.1% % 2.6% 1.7% % 75.1% 73.6% 2014 Population by Age Total 6,460 44, , % 6.5% 7.2% % 6.7% 7.1% % 6.6% 6.9% % 12.5% 14.0% % 13.9% 15.1% % 11.3% 12.2% % 12.5% 12.9% % 12.9% 11.7% % 8.6% 6.9% % 5.5% 4.0% % 3.0% 1.9% % 76.3% 74.7% 2019 Population by Age Total 6,682 45, , % 6.6% 7.4% % 6.7% 7.0% % 6.8% 7.1% % 11.0% 12.7% % 13.8% 15.1% % 12.5% 13.1% % 11.1% 11.6% % 12.8% 11.9% % 9.7% 8.1% % 5.8% 4.2% % 3.2% 2.0% % 76.2% 74.7% 2010 Population by Sex Males 2,944 21,595 57,144 Females 3,433 22,939 59, Population by Sex Males 2,973 21,592 58,164 Females 3,486 22,937 60, Population by Sex Males 3,063 22,104 60,409 Females 3,621 23,450 63,092 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 3 of 7

95 2010 Population by Race/Ethnicity Market Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles Total 6,377 44, ,110 White Alone 92.3% 93.6% 87.7% Black Alone 1.9% 1.6% 3.6% American Indian Alone 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% Asian Alone 1.6% 1.5% 1.9% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 1.5% 1.2% 4.0% Two or More Races 2.2% 1.8% 2.5% Hispanic Origin 5.4% 4.2% 9.1% Diversity Index Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 6,458 44, ,082 White Alone 91.8% 93.1% 86.8% Black Alone 2.0% 1.6% 3.6% American Indian Alone 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% Asian Alone 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 1.6% 1.3% 4.4% Two or More Races 2.4% 2.0% 2.7% Hispanic Origin 5.9% 4.6% 9.9% Diversity Index Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 6,684 45, ,500 White Alone 90.9% 92.3% 85.6% Black Alone 2.1% 1.8% 3.8% American Indian Alone 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% Asian Alone 2.0% 1.9% 2.3% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 1.8% 1.5% 4.9% Two or More Races 2.8% 2.3% 3.1% Hispanic Origin 6.5% 5.2% 11.0% Diversity Index Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 6,377 44, ,111 In Households 99.8% 99.5% 99.5% In Family Households 77.3% 86.9% 86.0% Householder 25.7% 27.8% 26.6% Spouse 19.7% 23.3% 21.2% Child 28.5% 32.7% 33.8% Other relative 1.7% 1.8% 2.4% Nonrelative 1.8% 1.4% 1.9% In Nonfamily Households 22.5% 12.6% 13.5% In Group Quarters 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% Institutionalized Population 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% Noninstitutionalized Population 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The Diversity Index measures the probability that two people from the same area will be from different race/ ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 4 of 7

96 Market Profile 2014 Population 25+ by Educational Attainment 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles Total 4,515 30,121 76,975 Less than 9th Grade 2.1% 1.5% 2.6% 9th - 12th Grade, No Diploma 8.2% 4.9% 5.9% High School Graduate 29.4% 27.2% 27.8% GED/Alternative Credential 6.0% 3.2% 3.6% Some College, No Degree 27.0% 23.8% 24.3% Associate Degree 6.3% 9.1% 8.8% Bachelor's Degree 15.0% 20.5% 19.1% Graduate/Professional Degree 5.9% 9.8% 7.9% 2014 Population 15+ by Marital Status Total 5,283 35,683 93,706 Never Married 27.4% 25.4% 28.5% Married 48.9% 59.3% 57.7% Widowed 11.7% 6.7% 4.9% Divorced 12.0% 8.6% 8.9% 2014 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force Civilian Employed 94.9% 94.4% 93.6% Civilian Unemployed 5.1% 5.6% 6.4% 2014 Employed Population 16+ by Industry Total 3,288 22,923 61,871 Agriculture/Mining 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% Construction 6.7% 5.8% 5.7% Manufacturing 16.5% 17.3% 19.1% Wholesale Trade 4.2% 4.1% 5.1% Retail Trade 14.2% 12.3% 11.3% Transportation/Utilities 5.9% 4.6% 4.4% Information 0.8% 1.4% 1.2% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8.1% 7.7% 6.6% Services 41.8% 44.0% 44.1% Public Administration 1.4% 2.4% 2.0% 2014 Employed Population 16+ by Occupation Total 3,290 22,924 61,871 White Collar 59.1% 60.8% 57.5% Management/Business/Financial 9.5% 13.8% 13.2% Professional 16.8% 20.9% 18.8% Sales 16.3% 12.1% 10.9% Administrative Support 16.5% 14.0% 14.7% Services 15.9% 15.4% 16.4% Blue Collar 25.1% 23.8% 26.1% Farming/Forestry/Fishing 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% Construction/Extraction 5.1% 4.2% 4.2% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 2.7% 3.0% 3.1% Production 8.4% 8.8% 10.8% Transportation/Material Moving 8.8% 7.5% 7.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 5 of 7

97 2010 Households by Type Market Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles Total 2,964 17,083 43,916 Households with 1 Person 38.1% 23.4% 23.3% Households with 2+ People 61.9% 76.6% 76.7% Family Households 56.6% 72.4% 71.0% Husband-wife Families 43.6% 60.7% 56.7% With Related Children 17.0% 25.2% 25.9% Other Family (No Spouse Present) 13.1% 11.7% 14.4% Other Family with Male Householder 3.8% 3.3% 4.1% With Related Children 2.5% 2.0% 2.5% Other Family with Female Householder 9.2% 8.4% 10.3% With Related Children 6.3% 5.6% 6.9% Nonfamily Households 5.3% 4.2% 5.7% All Households with Children 26.2% 33.2% 35.7% Multigenerational Households 1.6% 2.0% 2.7% Unmarried Partner Households 4.3% 3.9% 5.6% Male-female 3.9% 3.5% 5.2% Same-sex 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 2010 Households by Size Total 2,963 17,083 43,915 1 Person Household 38.1% 23.4% 23.3% 2 Person Household 31.7% 35.9% 33.8% 3 Person Household 12.6% 15.2% 15.9% 4 Person Household 11.0% 14.7% 14.8% 5 Person Household 4.4% 7.0% 7.8% 6 Person Household 1.6% 2.6% 2.9% 7 + Person Household 0.7% 1.2% 1.5% 2010 Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 2,964 17,083 43,916 Owner Occupied 53.9% 78.1% 72.9% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 34.7% 53.3% 52.2% Owned Free and Clear 19.2% 24.8% 20.7% Renter Occupied 46.1% 21.9% 27.1% Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent-child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 6 of 7

98 Top 3 Tapestry Segments 2014 Consumer Spending Market Profile 170 Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Chicago Dr, Jenison, Michigan, Latitude: Rings: 1, 3, 5 mile radii Longitude: mile 3 miles 5 miles 1. Retirement Communities Comfortable Empty Nesters Rustbelt Traditions (5D) 2. Parks and Rec (5C) Rustbelt Traditions (5D) Middleburg (4C) 3. Middleburg (4C) Salt of the Earth (6B) Soccer Moms (4A) Apparel & Services: Total $ $3,075,564 $23,258,997 $59,725,957 Average Spent $1, $1, $1, Spending Potential Index Computers & Accessories: Total $ $515,504 $3,970,298 $10,195,953 Average Spent $ $ $ Spending Potential Index Education: Total $ $3,008,103 $23,039,779 $57,815,478 Average Spent $ $1, $1, Spending Potential Index Entertainment/Recreation: Total $ $6,608,293 $52,495,701 $131,692,416 Average Spent $2, $3, $2, Spending Potential Index Food at Home: Total $ $10,447,117 $79,935,209 $204,031,479 Average Spent $3, $4, $4, Spending Potential Index Food Away from Home: Total $ $6,524,539 $50,293,621 $128,968,630 Average Spent $2, $2, $2, Spending Potential Index Health Care: Total $ $9,585,509 $76,637,219 $187,749,432 Average Spent $3, $4, $4, Spending Potential Index HH Furnishings & Equipment: Total $ $3,217,897 $25,476,312 $64,679,797 Average Spent $1, $1, $1, Spending Potential Index Investments: Total $ $4,539,100 $34,202,869 $83,417,860 Average Spent $1, $1, $1, Spending Potential Index Retail Goods: Total $ $48,109,715 $381,069,021 $961,919,923 Average Spent $15, $22, $21, Spending Potential Index Shelter: Total $ $33,516,472 $250,254,790 $637,660,528 Average Spent $10, $14, $14, Spending Potential Index TV/Video/Audio: Total $ $2,639,147 $20,160,616 $51,400,864 Average Spent $ $1, $1, Spending Potential Index Travel: Total $ $3,795,430 $30,648,091 $75,742,640 Average Spent $1, $1, $1, Spending Potential Index Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs: Total $ $2,208,957 $17,360,084 $43,957,214 Average Spent $ $1, $ Spending Potential Index Data Note: Consumer spending shows the amount spent on a variety of goods and services by households that reside in the area. Expenditures are shown by broad budget categories that are not mutually exclusive. Consumer spending does not equal business revenue. Total and Average Amount Spent Per Household represent annual figures. The Spending Potential Index represents the amount spent in the area relative to a national average of 100. Source: Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2011 and 2012 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Esri. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2014 and Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. April 03, Esri Page 7 of 7

99