real estate appraisal reportan analysis of elements affecting prices. the data was analyzed by...

©1998-2005 AgWare, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

File No.

Prepared For:

Intended User:

Prepared By:

Date Prepared:

2005-151

Real Estate Appraisal Report

Date of Inspection 6/16/05

Date of Value 6/16/05

Assignment Complete Appraisal

Report Type Summary

Regal Ranch4,500 Acres Deeded

Plus: Forest Lease & Soonover Grazing Coop Shares

Harding County, XX

Demonstration

Same

AgWare

2005

Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR®


File No.

Table of Contents

Page Title Page #

Demo

2005-151

Property Map 1

Summary of Property Facts 2

Market Value Definition 3

UASFLA Market Val. Definition 4

USPAP and Organizational Reqmts 5

Area - Regional Description 6

Narrative Land Description 7

Ranch Supplement 8

Subject Improvements 9

Highest and Best Use 10

Larger Parcel Discussion 11

Subject Valuation Factors 12

Explanation of Adjustments 13

Time Trend Worksheet 14

Appraisal Process & Method of Valuation 15

Comp. Sale to Sub - Cost Land Sales 1-5 16

Cost Approach (Land Sales 1-5) 17

Land Conclusion -- Cost Approach 18

Cost Appr Time Adjustment Sales 1-5 19

Improvements (1-10) 20

Depreciation Analysis 21

Income Approach 22

Comp. Sale to Sub. - S.C. 1-5 23

Sales Comparison (Improved Sales 1-5) 24

Comp. Sale to Sub. - SCA 6-10 25

Sales Comparison (Improved Sales 6-10) 26

$/AU Summary Chart 27

Reconciliation 28

Limiting Conditions 29

Appraiser Certification 30

UASFLA Certification 31

Appraiser Qualifications 32

Licenses & Certifications 33

Unimproved Sales #1 - #5

Improved Sales #6 - #15; plus Land/Building Mix Adjustments


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #

Demo

2005-151

Section Divider I

Subject Maps, Photographs, Legal Description, Value Definition, USPAP Requirements, etc.

1. Subject Maps

2. Subject Summary Information, Value Definition, USPAP Requirements, etc.

3. Subject Land & Improvement Descriptions



File No. #

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Property Map (Deeded = Yellow; Forest = Red)

SUBJECT

1 33

Forest Permit

Out

Neighbor


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Summary of Property Facts & Report Criteria

Owner/Occupant :Property Location:Legal Description

Deeded Property Size: Acres Effective Unit Size: ( )Total Property Size: ( )

Purpose of Report:

Intended Use of Report:

Client(s) & Intended User(s) of Report:

Property Rights Appraised:

Leased Fee Interest(s):

Reversionary Interest(s):

Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Regal Ranch, LLC/Jack Jarstad

Rural Route, Highliner, XX

Attached

4,500.00 4,500.00 Acres

See comments below

Form opinion of market value.

Demonstration report for appraisal review.

Regal Ranch, LLC and/or Jack Jarstad -- including their legal representatives.

Fee simple subject to easements and reservations of record (no reservations known).

None

None known

In addition to the deeded lands appraised, there are 475 AUMs of adjoining Forest permit on the National Forest; plus a 200-head ownership in

the Soonover Grazing Cooperative (east of the ranch - not contiguous).

While the "fee simple" estate has been appraised, the minerals (to whatever extent owned) do not contribute to value in this locale. Simply, the minerals are not

producing and are not leased. Thus, the mineral right contribution is very minor and likely less than $10/acre overall. There is some merit in owning the mineral

right ownership to control surface "trespass" issues, but lacking income and/or production, the market value cannot be easily quantified given the sales data

available.

2 33



File No #

MARKET VALUE DEFINITIONRegulations published by federal regulatory agencies pursuant to title XI of the Financial Institutions

Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA)

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 this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;

2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests;

3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market;

4. Payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements

comparable thereto; and

5. 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.

Other:

EXPOSURE AND MARKETING TIME ESTIMATES

Market value (see above definition) conclusion and the costs and other estimates used in arriving at conclusion of value is as of

the date of the appraisal. Because markets upon which these estimates and conclusions are based upon are dynamic in nature, they

are subject to change over time. Further, the report and value conclusion is subject to change if future physical, financial, or other

conditions differ from conditions as of the date of appraisal.

In applying the market value definition to this appraisal, a reasonable exposure time of months has been estimated.

Exposure time is the estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered in the market prior to the

hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; exposure time is always presumed to

precede the effective date of the appraisal.

Marketing time, however, is an estimate of the amount of time it takes to sell a property interest at the market value conclusion during

the period after the effective date of the appraisal. An estimate of marketing time is not intended to be a prediction of a date of sale. It

is inappropriate to assume that the value as of the effective date of appraisal remains stable during a marketing period. Additionally,

the appraiser(s) have considered market factors external to this appraisal report and have concluded that a reasonable marketing

time for the property is months.

Comments:

Page of

Demo

2005-151

6-12

6-12

3 33



File No #

UASFLA MARKET VALUE DEFINITION(As shown in the glossary of UASFLA)

Market value is the amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have

sold on the effective date of the appraisal, after a reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market, from a willing and

reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledge buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or

sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property at the time of appraisal.

(Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions, 2000 Edition).

Other:

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Federal definition of value would have been included -- if this were a 'Yellow Book' or UASFLA assignment.

4 33


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #USPAP, Organizational, or Other Requirements

Assignment: Report Type:Date of Inspection: Date of Value Opinion: Date of Report:Scope of Work: (Describe the amount and type of information researched and the analysis applied in this assignment. The Scope of Work includes, but

is not limited to the degree and extent of the property inspection; the extent of research into physical and economic factors affecting the property; the extent

of data research; and the type and extent of analysis applied to arrive at the opinions or conclusions. Additionally, describe sales availability & ability to

demonstrate market - "as vacant" - and "as improved" if applicable - or describe sales available to form value opinion "as completed" or proposed if requested;

describe income sources and ability of income to support existing or proposed construction; discuss extent of third party verification of RCN, if applicable.):

(Analyze and report any agreements of sale, options, or current listings as of the date of theSubject Property Sale & Marketing History:

appraisal - and all sales within three (3) years prior to the effective date of appraisal. For UASFLA assignments, report the details of the LAST SALE OF THE

SUBJECT - no matter when it occurred):

Exposure/Marketing Time: (Explain if USPAP, UASFLA, or Other):

Approaches to Value: (Explain Approaches Used and/or Omitted/USPAP Departure(s))

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Complete Summary

06/16/05 06/16/05 6/28/05

Federal, state, regional, and county data were reviewed and analyzed for any demographic or force of value that would either enhance or adversely

affect the value of the subject. Preceding and following the final inspection, I collected data concerning recent sales, resales, and leases of vacant and

improved properties within the immediate area (50-mile radius). Information used in the report is as reliable as practical with confirmation through

personal interviews or by telephone conversations with grantors, grantees, tenants, attorneys, or real estate brokers. When possible, two or more

parties involved with each transaction were questioned to enhance the validity of the data. Real estate brokers were also surveyed for listings, typical

marketing times, and current market conditions. After key sale elements were confirmed, the data was entered into the report to provide the basis for

an analysis of elements affecting prices. The data was analyzed by various accepted appraisal methods and techniques; and the appraisal report

prepared in a manner to meet the organization standards and current guidelines set forth in USPAP promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation.

I have appraised land in the area over the last 25 years with similar physical and economic characteristics and believe I am competent to complete this

assignment. I have collected, verified, analyzed, and photographed 53 sales for this project of which fifteen (15) were ultimately included for this

demonstration. Inspection of all sales was completed on the ground to the extent possible, and from the air over the last five years. Several of the

sales were previously appraised and/or inspected as part of other assignments. Each sale was analyzed for its components (cropland, hayland, CRP,

federal and state grazing permits, and buildings) and recorded individually. There are sufficient vacant land sales to allocate and estimate the respective

improvement contributions and form judgments regarding market depreciation. Five sales of Soonover Grazing Cooperative shares have also been

documented and verified (Emeril Ends 777-890-4455) about prior sales, the method of operation, "per head" annual assessment, etc.

I will demonstrate the types of market influences impacting prices -- including a detailed analysis of the land appreciation (speed at which prices are

moving upward) in Bink and Harding Counties. The buildings are a very minor part of the overall value; however, Marshall-Swift and Boeckh's National

Costing Services were considered -- along with known cost comparables (Bally Builders 777-543-6785) for various buildings throughout the area to

estimate the cost new of the subject structures in the Cost Approach.

I confirmed with Cooperative Secretary that the owners purchased 100 head or shares in the Soonover Grazing Cooperative in 2003 for $1,250/head. Another

100 head or shares were acquired as part of the earlier ranch purchase in 1999 for $875/head.

See prior page.

All three approaches to value will be applied in this appraisal, i.e., Cost, Income, and Sales Comparison Approaches. The preliminary indications from

each approach will then be reconciled into a final "point" value in the Reconciliation portion of the report.

5 33


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Area-Regional Description - Subject's Competitive Market Area

(Describe social, economic, governmental, & environmental forces affecting marketability & value - including but not limited to value trends,

sales activity, population trends, employment trends; market availability of competing properties; subject property compatibility within

neighborhood; effective purchase power, demand, desirability, etc.)

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Northwest XX is experiencing a strong real estate market which is located between Medium City and Large City. There are few properties available,

and they sell quickly. The general area is experiencing increases in prices from 0.5% to 1.25% per month with transitional areas with recreational or

residential amenities from 1.0% to 2.5% per month. The upward trend continues in 2005 with few properties selling and inventories remaining low to

moderate.

There are limited governmental influences affecting the area with the exception of grazing lands administered by the BLM, State, and Forest Service.

The economic base is primarily agricultural related complimented with scattered timber/lumber, recreation, and mining/energy development. There is

moderate BLM/government ownership along the Mule River breaks (west). The State land concentrations are located closer to the Big Mountains

with the exception of the State "checkerboard" created by the Section 16/36 pattern in each township. Most regional services are provided in Big Town

with smaller towns having more limited or specialized types. Projections are for a stable to modest growth with a low inventory of ranch and

recreational properties. Realtors indicate strong interest in properties with access, views, water, hunting, etc.

The subject is located in a ranching area with growing recreational overtones with spot residential types. Operational ranches vary from 1,000 to

50,000 acres while small recreational acreages range from 40 to 2,000 acres; or "transitional" ranches which can vary up to 5,000 acres. Recent large

sales are predominately 1031-exchanges with reinvestment by local and out-of-state buyers. The Big Creek area is noted as having some of the more

desirable property types due to the proximity to Big Mountains. Recreational influences have traditionally been strong, with a growing presence of

wealthy individuals searching for large and small homesites and/or ranches with live water (fisheries), hunting, scenic appeal, etc. These amenities

tend to drive the high-end values at rates of increase above the plains portion. Working ranches traditionally have government leases to assist in

lowering the overall cost of operation -- however, there has been some sensitivity in the market with ambiguity over inconsistent policy application

within agencies, public access to hunting (owners cannot control trespass), etc.

There is limited opportunity for "off-ranch" employment other than the energy related areas around Big City and Small Town. Local energy

development has provided strong growth in the subject's neighborhood and demand for most types of residential and recreational property. Statewide

population moved upward 2.6% since 2000 and up 8.9% since 1990; but the rural areas tend to have very low population densities, slow growth -- with

activity primarily around the major population centers.

Interest rates began to increase since the fourth quarter of 2004. This will likely impact market activity at some point for those requiring mortgages to

purchase property. The availability of financing remains strong; however, many buyers are using 1031-exchanges and paying cash. Realtors A, B, C, D,

E, F, and G indicate sales volume is down slightly, but the dollar amount per transaction is up. In all, this is a seller's market with relatively high

demand, good purchase power, and limited inventory -- especially for quality properties. Several larger properties have been purchased, then split for

smaller retail tracts -- a market where sales volume is up in areas like Big City, Really Big City, Average Town, and Scenic Town. This activity varies

from open, rolling prairie closer to existing population centers with spot developments in outlying areas -- changing to similar developments but

located on rolling and timbered types with higher amenities. Those transitional areas are often referred to as "consumptive" markets which results

from a growing population with a portion desiring to live outside towns and/or cities with a reasonable comute up to 1.0-1.25 hours.

6 33


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Land Description

Location: (Proximity to services, rentability, market appeal, building location, etc.)

Physical Characteristics: (Size, contiguity, terrain, land-mix, roads, legal & physical access, elevation/growing season, etc.)

Land Improvements: (Utilities, interior roads, drainage, fences, water development, recreational food plots, etc.)

Other Rights: (Water rights, mineral rights, air rights, etc.)

Soils Description:

Easements/Encroachments: (Conservation, Utility, Perservation, etc.)

Hazards & Detriments:

Comments:

Page of

Demo

2005-151

The subject is located north of Highliner, XX. There are no services in Highliner with the closest trade centers in Buffalo, Brockman, Junction, and

Pie Town. Newport is regarded as the regional distribution center (2-2.5 hours south). The western portion of the ranch abuts the National Forest and

includes a 475 AUM permit. The 200-head ownership in the Soonover Grazing Cooperative is not contiguous with the ranch -- and is east of the

headquarters. This portion of Harding County is very productive by comparison to ranches further south -- due in part to higher rainfall and stronger

soils. Wells are also easier to develop (shallow). The property is generally open to rolling with the "back-drop" of the North Red Hills along the

western horizon. There is one in-holding (160 acres in Section 7) plus there are two "trade-use" tracts where neighboring 40's are utilized to facilitate

management. Overall, productive unit in a good market area.

The subject contains 4,500 deeded acres. There are considerable differences between the FSA maps and satellite maps -- and the 600 acres of hayland

applied is a result of my calculations from those aerial maps. During my interview, Mr. Jarstad indicated there was about 400 acres of hay. The

remainder is undulating to rolling grazing land with a capacity of roughly 0.4 AUMs/acre. The Forest and Soonover Grazing permits augment the total

capacity which is about 325 head in normal years (325 AUs is equal to 3,900 AUMs). The gravel access to the headquarters is about 2 miles from

paved Highway 200. The east-west gravel access road nearly bisects the ranch. The ranch buildings are located on Keano Creek (seasonal) at an

elevation at slightly under 3,100 feet. The growing season is about 130 days from mid-May to roughly September 10th each year.

All utilities have been extended to the headquarters (electric/telephone); plus there is one main well 750 feet deep south of the house that services the

sheds, corrals, and livestock pipeline (approximately 8-9 miles) with several winterized stock tanks (3-2000 gallon and 5-800 gallon tanks). There

are a total of six wells (4 electric) that are complimented by several dams and springs. Fences vary from 3 to 6-strand with some woven wire -- that

varies from fair to average condition. There are a series of pipelines and dams on Soonover Grazing; and 3 dams, 1 windmill, 1 electric well, and 2

springs on the Forest permit -- all of which vary from fair to good depending on the pastures.

The degree of mineral ownership was not researched -- but the owner indicated they owned 100%. Minerals have not been a factor in this immediate

area, although areas southwest have gas and oil production (west and southwest of the Red Hills 20 miles). There has been no production on the

subject and no known leases. It is noted there was uranium production on the Forest allotment, but those are federal minerals). There is no irrigated

land on the subject; therefore, no water rights were considered.

Silty and sandy clay loams. In normal years the hayland produces 1.0-1.25 tons per acre -- which converts to 3-4 AUMs/acre.

None known that would have an impact on value. The owner has extended a pipeline onto the southern pasture of the Forest Allotment (NW of

Section 7) due to the lack of water in that locale. I have not researched the "recoverability" of that expenditure if the Forest permit were lost;

however, that rarely occurs. My understanding that improvement cost around $20,000.

None known that would have an impact on value, or would be different than the factors reflected by the sales relied upon for this analysis.

Overall, this is a good ranching unit for the area with a mix of federal and private grazing permits to compliment the deeded lands. The buildings are

below average with the exception of the newer hanger and reconditioned shed/corrals -- which will be discussed on page 9. The subject abuts the

Forest boundary -- a positive factor by market standards. From a management standpoint, the 160-acre in-hold is a nuisance, but a fairly typical

situation within the area.

7 33



File No.

Ranch Supplement (Carrying Capacity)General Discussion: (Shelter, management, carrying capacity, balances, etc.)

Co

mm

en

ts

Basis Source of Carrying Capacity Estimate:

Producing Unit Unit Stabilized

Land Use Acres Measure Rating % Share Condition, Quality of Forage AUM Capacity

Ca

pa

cit

y E

sti

ma

te

Deeded Total Deeded AUMs

Winter Feed Production

Producing Unit Unit Stabilized

Land Use Acres Measure Rating % Share Condition, Quality of Forage AUM Capacity

Win

ter

Deeded Total Deeded AUMs

Lease Analysis

Producing Permitted Stabilized

Lease Source Acres Capacity Dates Available, Term of Lease(s), Lease No.'s, etc. AUM Capacity

Lea

se

Leased Total Leased AUMs

Summary

Deeded Acres % AUMs Grazing Months Grazing

Deeded AUMs % AUMs Feedbase Months Feed Season

Leased AUMs % AUMs Lease AUMs/Month: GrazingSu

mm

ary

Total AUMs AUMs/Month/Winter

Page of

Demo

2005-151

There is limited natural shelter on the deeded lands. Most areas are highly susceptible to wind and blowing snow during the winter months. The sheds and

corrals would be rated as a minimum to sustain 325 head year to year. Generally, the deeded portions are used for hay production and headquarters for

about 8 months; then the Forest and Soonover Grazing units are used for summer grazing. About 27% of total capacity is generated from hay and 12%

from Forest lease -- but that portion from hay typically carries more weight in the market than those 'AUs' from lease. Simply, a hay 'AU' requires

machinery, labor, etc., where a leased grass 'AU' merely requires opening the gate. Thus, there is more correlation in the market with regard to the

percentage of capacity generated by hay and/or farming.

NOTE: The typical "landlord's" share used in the computations below (50% for hay) applied to eliminate the added agents of production (labor,

machinery, etc., or the 'business of farming') required to generate additional forage -- to arrive at the "net" to the land.

FSA and Local Custom

Hayland 600.00 Acres 3.500 50 Average 1,050.00

Pasture 3,900.00 Acres 0.400 100 Average 1,560.00

Soonover Shares 200 hd x 4 months = 800 AUMs 800.00

4,500.00 3,410.00

Hayland 600.00 Acres 3.50 50 Average 1,050.00

600.00 1,050.00

Forest Permit 476.00 10-year Permit; Annual renewal. Use from 5/21 to 10/20 476.00

476.00

4,500.00

3,410.00

476.00

3,886.00

61

27

12

8

4

354.50

262.50

8 33



File No #

Act. Eff. Rem. Con-Type Size Construction Qlty Foundation Roof Floor Exterior Age Age Life formity Utility Cond.

Improvement Comments: (Discuss and/or expand any items affecting value structure-by-structure, if necessary)

Above BelowSite Improvements: Avg. Avg. Avg. N/A

Overall Structural Balance

Overall Structural Condition

Improvement Rating

Overall Property Rating

Overall Building REL years

Su

bje

ct

Imp

rov

em

en

t D

es

cri

pti

on

Page of

Demo

2005-151

House 2,000 Frame a-f CC Shingle Mixed Wood 47 3 f f f-p

Shed 2,050 Pole a-f Post/Pole Metal Dirt Metal 20 30 a a-g g

Shed 3,600 Pole f Post/Pole Metal Dirt Metal 40 10 a-f a-f f

Hanger 2,560 Metal g CC Metal CC Metal 5 25 15 a a-g g

Mobile Home 1,240 Manufact a-f Block Metal Mixed Metal 15 25 10 a-f a f

Bins (4) 4,000 Metal a-f CC Metal CC Metal 30 10 f f f

Corrals 2 Pipe g Post 20 30 g g g

All structural square footages were taken from the County Assessor's Office -- given their minimal contribution. The owner agreed they

would have a small impact on the final value.

The main house is an older 1.5 story frame structure with attached 2-car block garage that has been partially converted to living space and

also used as a work area to manufacture snowmobiles in the past. The house is dated and beyond updating, i.e., most buyers would

maintain but not improve the structure.

The "newer" shed had a new roof and siding replaced in 1997. The hanger was constructed in 1996 with bi-fold doors, insulated/heated,

and could be used as machine shed as well. While newer, the hanger's effective age accelerated to account for the obsolescence observed

in the market for a structure of this type.

The interior of the 1994 mobile home was not inspected.

There are two sets of good pipe corrals -- one at the buildings/headquarters and used in conjunction with the shed with new siding; and

one in the "north pasture".

There are several older out-buildings which have NOT been inventoried and do not contribute to value.

There is an older shelter-belt and a newer

planting just north of the house. A gravel road extends from the

county maintained access road to the buildings. There are deciduous

trees along the creek and near the buildings, but no professional

landscaping.

X

X

X

X X

25

9 33



Demo

2005-151

Section Divider II

Highest & Best Use Analysis

1. Highest & Best Use Discussion/Conclusion

2. Larger Parcel Discussion

3. Summary of the Subject's Valuation Factors -- Prior to Beginning the Appraisal Approaches


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Highest & Best Use Analysis

Highest & Best Use is defined as that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value, as of the effective date of the

appraisal. Alternatively, that use, from among reasonably probable and legally alternative uses found to be physically possible, appropriately

supported, financially feasible, and which results in the highest value. (Appraisal of Rural Property, 2nd Edition 2000, ASFMRA/AI, 8.)

Legally Permissible Use(s) (Include deed restrictions, existing zoning and/or potential to change zoning).

Current Zoning: Assessed Value: $ Taxes: $

Physically Possible Use(s) (Discuss any limitations and/or advantages).

Financially Feasible Use(s) (Discuss any/all potential financial uses & likelyhood of realization).

Maximally Productive Use(s) (Discuss single and/or concurrent uses of the subject property).

Consistent Use: (If improved, do structures conform to Highest & Best Use "as if" vacant?)

Page of

Demo

2005-151

The concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which market value is based. Another appropriate term to reflect highest and best use

-- would be the most "probable usage" of a property after review of its legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally

productive uses. The property is NOT zoned, but is shown by the taxing authority as "county agricultural". There are no known deed restrictions that

would preclude development of the property into its high and best use.

NOTE: The assessed values in State XX rarely track with market values and tend to be tied to historic numbers adjusted annually for changes. The

subject's assessment at $506,850 equates to $114/acre which is less than the purchase price in 1994.

Agriculture 506,850 4,780.75

Other than for drainages and rough breaks or escarpments, there are no physical constraints on the property. Property in this area are considered

grazing units --with limited recreational overtones (deer, turkey, and antelope hunting).

Of the 325 AU capacity of the subject, approximately 1,276 AUMs (106 AUs) are located on the Forest or Soonover Cooperative lands. That leaves

about 219 AUs on the private land -- which computes to slightly over 20 acres per AU (animal unit). The current ranch sales (see attached) support

prices from $3,000 to $6,000 per AU -- which implies prices from $150 to $300/acre ($3,000 divided by 20 acres, or $6,000 divided by 20 acres).

At today's cattle prices, calves typically sell for $600 to $700 each. Using 4%-5% "opportunity cost", about $150 to $240/head ($3,000/AU x 5% and

$6,000 x 4%) is required on a "gross basis" -- less an additional 50% to 75% for operational expenses -- does not leave much remaining income to

compete with alternative investments. However, there are no competing uses for ranch land to offset these costs. Hunting influence is gradually

increasing in the area, but it not yet regarded as a factor. Until competing uses with higher income can be demonstrated, agriculture remains the only

economic use of similar property.

Given the lack of competing uses, the "maximally productive use" of the property is for agricultural purposes with very limited recreational overtones.

The subject's improvements are considered modest by market standards. Buyers of similar vacant land would construct similar outbuildings -- with

possibly the exception of the hanger. This is an "over-improvement" -- simply, most ranches do not have a structure of this quality and designed for

this purpose. The house is rated an "under-improvement" -- which means it may suffice for labor housing; however, most 325 AU ranches do not

require secondary housing. It also would be suitable for seasonal use for hunters -- but most operational ranches of this size would require a larger and

higher quality primary residence.

10 33


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Larger Parcel Discussion

(The "larger parcel" discussion addresses the potential that, two or more physically separate tracts may constitute a "single" larger parcel;

or conversely, a single physical tract may constitute multiple "larger parcels" for valuation purpose. Address unity of title, unity of use, &

contiguity.)

Page of

Demo

2005-151

While this 'discussion' is more typical of condemnation appraisals; I believe with the growing recreational and larger or exclusive rural residential

tracts (2,000 to 5,000 acres in size) emerging -- the neighborhood characteristics and corresponding impact on the subject should be addressed.

This part of the analysis, the form of ownership and orientation of the property under the beneficial control of a single individual or entity is

considered in order to DEFINE the "marketable property, or property rights to be appraised". That property or entity appraised must fall within the

"market parameters" with regard to size, utility, amenities, etc. Further, the appraiser's estimate of highest and best use must be an "economic use"

within the private sector. A "non-economic" highest and best use such as conservation, natural lands, preservation, or any use that requires the property

be withheld from private economic production is NOT a valid use upon which to base an estimate of market value. The object is to measure the value

of the land in the private market, not the value of the land to the government, conservation group, etc.

Turning back to the larger parcel issue, if one were to configure a property, either in size, orientation, or mixture of uses that did not exist in the open

market, its "market value" could not be measured because sales of those unusual properties simply does not exist. The appraiser must be able to

examine "sales" of similar properties, or property rights, in order to quantify its value. Market value literally means the interpretation of the

interaction of buyers and sellers --- not a single buyer or a single seller where their motivation and/or purchase power cannot be replicated.

To clarify the "larger parcel" issue, let's use an example where several scattered parcels of land, say 10 tracts, are held under one ownership and have

several different uses or mixture of uses depending on physical amenities. As such, there may be multiple appraisals required depending on how many

"sets" of similar property types exist within the 10 tracts -- each "set" having its own "larger parcel" characteristics. Conversely, a property may be so

large that it must be "re-defined" in smaller tracts in order to coincide with the "norms" of the market.

In this case, the subject could easily be marketed in varying configuration as:

1.) 4,500 deeded acres;

2.) 4,500 deeded acres with Forest Permit -- or permit sold separately; or

2.) 4,500 deeded acres with Forest Permit and Soonover Grazing Cooperative Shares -- or Coop Shares sold independently.

Simply, any combination of the private and federal grazing units could be easily marketed within the area. The Soonover Grazing units could be sold

separately -- as could the Forest Permit (must be sold with corresponding number of cattle to convey ownership) -- a requirement which is very

common in the region.

For this report, I have considered all components as highly marketable -- either separately, or together -- and have appraised them collectively, or as

part of the whole.

11 33



Demo

2005-151

Section Divider III

Data Analysis & Factors Affecting Value

1. Subject Valuation Factors: Discussion of the key factors impacting the valuation of the property.

2. Time-Trend Worksheet: Discussion covering the rate the market is appreciating.

3. Appraisal Process & Method of Valuation


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Subject Valuation Factors

:.

:.

:.

:.

Positive Elements Versus Negative Elements

Comments: (Impact on value of elements to a single buyer)

Page of

Demo

2005-151

There are "physical" differences between the subject and sale. The market has been very strong, i.e., a seller's market. Elements such as land and

building mix, time, and water influence continue to segregate properties in the lower one-third, middle one-third, or upper third of the market.

Recreational influence also plays an important part of this amenity driven market.

Land & Building Mix

Each sale was inventoried by land type and/or production and the contribution of buildings identified. This is important because sales with hayland or

"accelerated" production typically sell for premiums. Further, highly improved properties also sell above vacant land tracts. Therefore, the land and

building differences were adjusted to the subject with individual adjustment grids shown with the respective sales and transferred to the grid(s) in the

Sales Comparison Approach.

Time

Several resales have been documented to demonstrate the rate at which this market is moving upward. That analysis is presented in the next section.

Simply, sales must be adjusted given the specific date which they sold to reflect the current market conditions.

Water/FencesWater and fences clearly have an impact on values when year-round or summer grazing represents the majority of the income potential from a

property. Several sales used in direct comparison had similar creeks or water pipelines.

Rarely do fences have a measurable impact on value. Most buyers prefer average to good fences, but poor fences seemingly never terminate ranch

purchases.

Most adjacent sales have similar levels of recreational appeal.

Recreational Influence (Timber)

Sale 6, with a new lodge/house, clearly shows the market changing when coupled with timber and corresponding recreation influence. Simply stated,

the recreational component is beginning to emerge in this market. Sales with timber are expected to increase at a more rapid pace than open, rolling

land without this amenity.

1. Good mix of hay and pasture; cross-fences & water development with

supplemental grazing and ownership in the Soonover Grazing.

2. Adjoins the National Forest with only one other user of the allotment

(Nickelson).

3. Deer, antelope, and turkey, i.e., limited recreational influence is a plus

in this market -- along with its paved frontage on Hwy 200.

4. On-site scoria for potential resale or ranch road development.

1. Limited natural shelter.

2. Structural balance slightly below average, i.e., poor main house yet

over-adequate airplane hanger.

3. Remote area by market standards.

Average sized unit for the area with good mix of hayland and leases/permits. The access and common boundary with the Forest appears to be an asset

-- see sales attached. Also, prices paid for the Soonover Grazing units have increased steadily from $875/head in 1999 to $1,500/head in 2005 (see

page 16) -- the rate of increase is only 9.5%/year by comparison to resales of ranches in the area at roughly 10%/year. The water pipelines, spring-fed

dams, and paved frontage on Highway 200 are all strong elements within the market.

12 33



File No. #

Explanation of Adjustments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

The first step in the appraisal process begins with measuring or "quantifying" as many adjustments as possible. Since the market continues to

change over time -- the first element to consider -- after land and building mix differences -- is "how fast" the market is changing. I have

documented 7 resales (properties that sold; then resold later) in six surrounding counties for the changing market. The conclusion is shown

on the facing page at 0.75%/month -- compound.

NOTE: Compound rates of change are extracted and reapplied because this enables the appraiser to move forward or backwards in time using

the same rate. Simple, or "straight-line" rates of change could have also been used; however, those rates are larger and only apply in the

direction they are extracted. For example, assume the market is moving upwards 10%/year and a sale sold last year for $200/acre was

"time-adjusted" to $220/acre (upwards 10% for the single year). If that sale were current or today, and you had to adjust it back in time for the

year difference for comparison to an older sale -- then 10% of $220/acre is $22.00 -- and when subtracting $22.00/acre from $220/acre

current price -- the net result is $198/acre. Stated differently, a "straight-line" rate will only allow you to adjust in one direction -- not both.

When using "straight-line" adjustments a second rate would have to be extracted to adjusted new sales back in time for comparison to older

sales. Compound rates can be applied in either direction and are easier for the reader to understand -- rather than one rate to adjust upward

and a different rate to adjust downward.

For the reader's benefit, either compound or "straight-line" rates can be employed and will produce the same result if applied correctly.

Other elements for location, water, market appeal, etc., will be discussed on a sale-by-sale basis.

13 33



File No. #

TIME TREND ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Annual Periods Compound Calculation Auto-Calculate Periods

Monthly Periods Straight Line Calculation Manually Calculate Periods

Time Trend AnalysisCurrent Current Current Prior Prior Prior Rate of

DB Rec. No. CEV/Acre Sale Date DB Rec. No. CEV/Acre Sale Date Periods Change

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Conclusion

Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Weston, Niobrara, Natrona, and Johnson Counties -- Resale Analysis for Time

X X X

d337 394 04/05 270 04/01 4.00 9.91

d339 276 05/04 152 05/98 6.01 10.43

d327 294 04/04 209 04/01 3.00 12.05

d332 176 03/03 110 03/98 5.00 9.86

d338 228 08/02 171 08/99 3.00 10.06

d333 423 01/05 185 01/97 8.01 10.88

d335 325 09/04 222 09/00 4.00 10.00

d330 153 05/03 12 137 03/02 1.17 9.90

d340 185 04/03 4 95 03/96 7.09 9.86

d329 204 12/02 80 12/93 9.01 10.95

d326 130 03/00 74 03/94 6.01 9.83

d334 105 10/98 38 10/87 11.01 9.67

10%

The twelve resales documented occurred since 1998 with increases that varied from 9.67% to

12.05%/year (compound). Resale d327 appears to be the exception at 12.05%/year with buyer motivation that is

stronger than the remainder of the market. The preponderance of the data clearly shows a range from 9.67% to

10.95%/year -- and is unusually consistent (its a demonstration!!!). The most current sale (d337) shows a rate of

9.91%/year -- I have applied 10%/year for this analysis.

14 33



File No. #

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Appraisal Process & Method of Valuation

As noted earlier, the Income, and Sales Comparison approaches will be employed for this appraisal. Fifty-three (53) sales have been

researched and fifteen (15) within the immediate area selected -- stressing proximity and/or current date of sale.

The 'Cost Approach' typically begins with the analysis of vacant or unimproved land sales -- from which the subject's value for each

component part (cropland, pasture, etc.) is estimated. The depreciated cost of the structures is then added to that sum of the land components

for a 'combined cost estimate'.

The Income Approach uses market rental rates from which deductions for taxes, insurance (buildings), maintenance (3%), management

(10%), and government leases, if any, were taken. Operations, or income from running cattle, buffalo, etc., were not applied since that

"operational" income includes the impact of an on-going business of the ag operations -- something beyond the value of the real estate

standing alone. Thus, rental income was used -- or income the property would command in the marketplace "as if" it were rented by a

knowledgeable third party. All sales were analyzed in the same manner, i.e., with rental income -- from which typical landlord expenses were

deducted. A capitalization rate was then derived from those sales which was re-applied to the subject's rental income.

The Sales Comparison Approach examines value as an 'overall price per acre' -- where the selling price of sales per acre is adjusted for

building differences by comparison to the subject. That subtotal within the sales comparison grid is adjusted for time, then comparisons

drawn for a final opinion of value via this method. I have also considered prices per animal unit ($/AU) as a cross-check near the conclusion

of this section -- but large variations shown by the current sales indicates less and less emphasis is being placed on productivity by the buyers

in their acquisition strategies. As shown by Sale 6, the market for property with Forest Allotments adjoining the base properties have nearly

doubled since 2003.

The preliminary indications from each of the Income and Sales Comparison approaches are then 'reconciled' into a final opinion, or 'point

value' at the conclusion of this section.

The ORDER of appraisal approaches are:

A. Cost Approach

B. Income Approach

C. Sales Comparison Approach

Then, the RECONCILIATION -- to form an opinion of a single "point" value.

-- Assumptions & Limiting Conditions

-- Appraiser(s) Certification

-- Appraiser Qualifications

-- Appraiser Licenses & Certifications

15 33



Demo

2005-151

Section Divider IV

Cost Approach to Value Section

1. Compares Vacant Land Sales 1-5 to the Subject Property -- Sales discussed are shown on the "Cost Grid" facing.

2. Cost "Grid" that displays summary of the first five (5) sales considered in this approach.

3. & 4. Repeats pages 1 and 2 immediately above -- but for Land Sales 6-10.

5. Cost Approach Land: Time-Adjustment Page --- component land/permits prices (historic) are time-adjusted.

6. Subject Improvement List: Replacement cost, depreciation/obsolescence, and contribution discussed for each building.

7. Improved sales from which a "market rate of depreciation/obsolescence" was measured -- then compared to the subject.


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Compare Sales to Subject (Cost Approach Sales 1-5)

Sale 1: Date: # Acres: $/Ac: $

Sale Comments/Elements:

Comparison to Subject:













Page of

Demo

2005-151

d337 4/2005 2,465 394Sale located 6-7 miles north of Camp Creek between the county road and forest -- with 1.75 miles of forest boundary (1,000 acres in permit). Stockwater

is provided from a 50-acre reservoir plus 3 other dams, 5 wells, one flowing spring, and live Slick Creek. Average recreational influence bordering the forest with deer, antelope, and turkey. 1901

water rights for 1,000 inches on 240 acres plus 1903 rights for another 1,000 inches on 160 acres -- but the 160-acre second right is included in the 240 acres shown in 1901. Simply, there are

"double" rights on 160 acres with 80 acres having "single" rights. I have inventoried only the irrigated "wet" acres at 240. There is approximately 160 acres of hayland, 164 acres of "go-back",

and 200 acres of "subby" bottoms along live Slick Creek and Plum Creek.

This sale was included as a current indication of the pasture and hayland due to its proximity to the Forest. The dry hayland at $406.53/acre is slightly

higher than the subject due to the sale's smaller size. The pasture at $238.84/acre is similar given the water distribution on both.

d339 5/2004 1,968 254Sale located immediately east of the Beach Airport. Highway 200 forms the south boundary and a county road traverses through the northwest corner

and along north boundary. If Beach were growing, this would be a good candidate for development; however, there is no demand. The seller had listed for several years and was not willing to

negotiate price -- and appears the market ultimately increased to the asking price. Water included a dam and well with windmill; plus the Smith River extends through the south-central portion.

Due to drought, water was not adequate and the buyer developed a new well, pipeline and tanks.

Grass sale with very little appeal (treeless creek) -- other than it is close to Buffalo. The hay values time-adjusted to $387.95/acre and pasture to

$254.94/acre. Overall, the productivity from the hay and grasslands are slightly inferior, but proximity to Buffalo appears to have positively influenced prices. Based on this comparison, the

subject's hayland is reasoned below $387.95/acre and the grazing at $254.94/acre (superior location).

d327 4/2004 1,280 294Unimproved sale in two tracts -- the largest is located 1.5 miles south of Highliner -- east of Highway 45 (west boundary for 0.5-mile). The buyer plans

to develop pheasant and prairie dog hunting!! Winding Creek (seasonal) enters the west boundary at highway; then curves northeasterly for 2.5 miles -- the widest part of the unit -- then runs

into Brown Lake about 2-3 miles further northeast. Rocky Butte delineates the southern boundary and joins Forest Allotment. A large portion of the property (66%) is enrolled in the CRP

program. Buyer indicated the CRP payments (6 years remaining) contributed about $100/acre to the sale -- but that was based on all 1,280 acres. After analysis, this appears to be the sum of the

gross payments. Remaining pasture has limited utility and inventoried at $190/acre.

Sale is about five miles north of the subject. The CRP and/or improved hay contributed $363.34/acre, pasture with limited utility at $212.41/acre, and Forest

permit at $111.80/acre. The pasture and hay/CRP indications are rated low given the co-mingling of property types with no cross-fences -- but the buyer motivation likely sets the upper limit of

value. Simply, it would appear the overall price per acre for conversion to more recreation uses diminishes the quality of these indices.

d332 3/2003 2,920 176Sale located 15 miles northwest of Highliner. Buyer purchased the property to develop a small cow-calf operation. Buyer works in the nearby oil field.

Approximately 300 acres of cropland/hayland in small fields. The sale includes a seasonal drainage (Upper Mule Creek) which includes a few trees and springs that extends southeasterly from

Ash Hollow Butte. The former hayland appears to have been cropped after sale.

Sale included since it was five miles southeast of the subject. The hayland time-adjusted to $365.56/acre and pasture to $194.55/acre. The pasture is more

rolling and less productive than the subject by one-third (15%). Cropland/hay is also rated inferior with small, choppy fields -- most less than 10 acres each. Thus, a value greater than

$365.56/acre is reasoned for the subject's hayland. Further, a value between $230 and $240/acre is computed for pasture based on productivity.

d338 8/2002 1,274 228Sale adjoins the small town of Camp Creek. Buyer working on grandfather's ranch and this is his first real estate purchase. Sale includes four (4)

sections of State land -- lease cost $1.30/acre per year which is about $2.50/acre below the market rent for deeded lands in the area. The buyer indicated he paid $100/acre more for the property

due to the leases -- however, using a market rate of $180/acre for the deeded pasture shows a residual of $65/AUM for the State lease. Sold by an attorney via sealed bids.

The deeded pasture time-adjusted to $235.95/acre is considered reasonable support for the subject -- since this sale is pasture only.

16 33


©1998-2005 AgWare, Inc. All Rights Reserved. File No #

Cost Approach (Sales 1-5)Item: Sale #1 Sale #2 Sale #3 Sale #4 Sale #5

Grantor

Grantee

Source

Date

CEV Price

Deeded Acres

Location

Historic Allocation

Time Adjusted Allocation

Allocated Value ( 100% ) $ $ $ $ $

Allocated Value ( %) $ $ $ $ $








Sa

le L

an

d A

llo

ca

tio

n


Land Use Acres $/Acre Unit Type Unit Size $/Unit Total

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

Su

bje

ct

La

nd

Esti

mate

Total Acres: $ Total Units: $

Cost Approach Summary: (Check one of the following methods applicable to the subject and sale analyses)

Lump Sum Depreciation: Improvement Contribution % of Cost Estimate $

$Breakdown Depreciation: Improvement Contribution Indication

Breakdown Depreciation: Age/Life Depreciation Improvement Contribution Indication $

OTHER $

COST APPROACH INDICATION (Land & Improvements) $

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d337

Newton RanchHumveeAuction04/05

972,0002,465.26

Camp Creek

X

d339

RayfordDoolittle

Buyer05/04

544,0001,968.35

Beach

X

d327

Angus BreedersSpanish Trail

Buyer04/04

376,7501,280.32Highliner

X

d332

GiacomettoPetronikBuyer03/03

515,0002,920.00Highliner

X

d338

Pfiffer RanchesPale, R

Buyer/Attorney08/02

290,0001,273.80

Camp Creek

XCrop A

Crop B80.00

Acre Hay/CRP600.00 75.00

160.00

406.53700.00

387.95840.00

363.34300.00

365.56Pasture A

50.00164.00

304.901,268.35

254.94Acre Pasture B3,900.00 40.00

1,701.26

238.84440.00

212.412,620.00

194.551,273.80

235.95Irrigated

300.00240.00

1,219.60Subby/Btms/Pines

150.00200.00

762.25AUMs Forest Permit475.00

220.00

101.6397.00

83.1395.00

111.80BLM Permit 213.00

55.90337.00

55.76Head Soonover Coop200.00

Crop ACrop BHay/CRP 600.00 375.00 225,000.00Pasture APasture B 3,900.00 235.00 916,500.00IrrigatedSubby/Btms/PinesForest Permit AUMs 475.00 100.00 47,500.00BLM PermitSoonover Coop Head 200.00 1,500.00 300,000.00

4,500.00 330.89 675.00 1,489,000.00

0

X 65,169

(r) 1,554,000

17 33



File No. #

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Land Conclusion -- Cost Approach

HAYLAND: Reasonably consistent indications within the neighborhood showing time-adjusted hayland prices from $363.34 to

$406.53/acre. Sale #1 (d337) is the most current transaction -- thus, weight is given to the $406.53/acre indication. This sale is smaller --

and also contains irrigation and meadow; thus, the six combined components within this property may cloud the contribution of each land

category to a degree. It sold at auction with strong competition. By comparison, a conclusion at something slightly less than $406.53/acre is

suggested for hayland stressing the subject's larger size.

Sale #2 (d339) and Sale #3 (d327) show time-adjusted hayland prices from $363.34 to $387.95/acre -- and essentially brackets the subject's

value for this category. Sale #4 shows hayland prices at $365.56/acre -- after time-adjustment. However, the subject's value is supported at

something higher due to the sale's small choppy fields.

I have concluded $375/acre for the subject's hayland given the overall range from the similarities drawn.

PASTURE: Pasture prices varied from $194.55 to $238.84/acre; however, the low indicator has inferior productivity (Sale #4). To

assist by adjusting the $194.55/acre indication upward by 20% (different than the 15% adjustment measured in the other direction, i.e., 15%

inferior translates to an upward adjustment of 20% to the sale), or to $233.46/acre for pasture narrows the overall range from $212.42 to

$238.84/acre.

Sale #3 at $212.42/acre has low utility and was co-mingled with a sale with mostly CRP land. Thus, little weight is given to the pasture

indication. Sales #1 and #5 show a narrow range from $235.95 to $238.84 suggesting the time-adjustment spanning the 2.5 year difference

(newest to oldest unimproved sales) is well supported. Sale #2 has superior pasture with higher capacity; however, the $254.94/acre

indication is only $20/acre higher than the more typically grassland in the area.

I have concluded $235/acre for the subject's pasture based on the analysis above.

FOREST PERMIT: There are three unimproved sales that show Forest permits from $75 to $100/AUM -- prior to time-adjustment. I

reviewed the original 53 sales -- 41 of which have some type of Forest, BLM, or State leases or permits. Generally, prices ($/AUM basis)

have gradually increased over time -- but not to the degree, or speed at which the deeded lands have appreciated. Thus, the time-adjustment

'procedure' has been consistently applied to all land type categories, but likely overstates the market's perception for 'non-deeded' leases or

permits. Sale #1 is a good example where the original allocation of $100/AUM was roughly the same as Sale #3 -- one year earlier.

For the subject's Forest permit, I applied $100/AUM.

SOONOVER COOPERATIVE GRAZING SHARES: It is noted, 200 shares are the maximum that can be held by any one individual, ranch,

or operating entity (Coop Bylaws). There are 3,600 total grazing shares in the all-deeded land coop. I have listed the last five (5) sales in the

Soonover Grazing Cooperative, which includes two (2) acquisitions by the subject's owner (Regal Ranch):

1. Nelson to McNeil: 200 shares transferred in 1999 for $ 875/share

2. Elton to Regal Ranch: 100 shares transferred in 1999 for $ 875/share

3. Johnson to Hat Ranch: 50 shares transferred in 2000 for $ 950/share

4. Spanish Trail to Regal Ranch: 100 shares transferred in 2003 for $1,250/share

5. Altonner to Cringle: 150 shares transferred in 2005 for $1,500/share

There is clearly an upward trend over the last six years. The prices paid by the subject's owner are supported by other sales. The time-trend is

slightly less than observed earlier, i.e., the time-trend shown here is about 9.5%/year while the resale analysis earlier was reconciled at 10%.

Given the upward trend and most recent sale, I applied $1,500/share to the subject.

18 33



Cost Approach Time Adjustment Worksheet

Rate of Change: Simple Periods: Annual Auto Calc Periods

Compound Monthly Manually Calc Periods

SALE No.: 1 2 3 4 5Date of Sale

Eff. Date of Appraisal

Periods, Rate %

$

Time Adjusted Value $

$


$


$


$


$


$


$


$


$


SALE No.: 6 8 9 107Date of Sale

Eff. Date of Appraisal

Periods, Rate %

$


$


$


$


$


$


$


$


$


$


Page of

Demo

2005-151

X

X X

Crop A

Crop B

Hay/CRP

Pasture A

Pasture B

Irrigated

Subby/Btms/Pines

Forest Permit

BLM Permit

Soonover Coop

04/05

06/05

0.17 10.00

500.00

508.17

400.00

406.53

400.00

406.53

300.00

304.90

235.00

238.84

1,200.00

1,219.60

750.00

762.25

100.00

101.63

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

05/04

06/05

1.08 10.00

400.00

443.37

350.00

387.95

350.00

387.95

230.00

254.94

195.00

216.14

1,150.00

1,274.68

400.00

443.37

75.00

83.13

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

04/04

06/05

1.17 10.00

450.00

503.09

375.00

419.24

325.00

363.34

235.00

262.72

190.00

212.41

1,200.00

1,341.56

700.00

782.58

100.00

111.80

50.00

55.90

0.00

0.00

03/03

06/05

2.25 10.00

400.00

495.67

315.00

390.34

295.00

365.56

200.00

247.84

157.00

194.55

1,200.00

1,487.01

400.00

495.67

0.00

0.00

45.00

55.76

0.00

0.00

08/02

06/05

2.84 10.00

437.00

572.84

350.00

458.80

328.00

429.96

218.00

285.77

180.00

235.95

1,311.00

1,718.53

655.00

858.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

65.00

85.21

Crop A

Crop B

Hay/CRP

Pasture A

Pasture B

Irrigated

Subby/Btms/Pines

Forest Permit

BLM Permit

Soonover Coop

06/05 06/05 06/05 06/05 06/05

19 33



Improvement Contribution (1-10)IMPROVEMENT 1 2 3 4 5

Type

Size

Age

Remaining Life

RCN $/Unit

RCN

$/Unit Contribution

Total Depreciation

Total Depreciation %

% Physical

Physical Depreciation

RCN Rem. After Phys. Depr.

% Functional

Functional Obsolescence

RCN Rem. After Phys./Funct. Depr.

% External

External Obsolescence

Improvement

Contribution

IMPROVEMENT 6 7 8 9 10

Type

Size

Age

Remaining Life

RCN $/Unit

RCN

$/Unit Contribution

Total Depreciation

Total Depreciation %

% Physical

Physical Depreciation

RCN Rem. After Phys. Depr.

% Functional

Functional Obsolescence


% External

External Obsolescence

Age/Life Depreciation

Improvement

Contribution

Overall Contribution Cost Approach Est. $$ Cost: Replacement Reproduction

(All Improvements) Improvement Contribution %

Total $ Total $ Total $ Total $

Total RCN $ Total % Total % Total % Total %

Physical Depreciation Functional Obsolesence External Obsolesence Depreciation

Co

st

Ap

pro

ac

h I

mp

rov

em

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

House2,000

473

80.00160,000

4.80150,400

94

94150,4009,600

9,600

9,600

Shed2,050

2030

5.7511,7883.454,715

40

404,7157,073

7,073

7,073

Shed3,600

4010

4.7517,1000.95

13,68080

8013,6803,420

3,420

3,420

Hanger2,560

2515

20.0051,2007.40

32,25663

6332,25618,944

18,944

18,944

Mobile Home1,240

2510

45.0055,80013.0539,618

71

7139,61816,182

16,182

16,182

Bins (4)4,000

3010

1.255,0000.313,750

75

753,7501,250

1,250

1,250

Corrals2

2030

7,250.0014,500

4,350.005,800

40

405,8008,700

8,700

8,700X

65,169(r) 1,554,000

4.19X

315,388250,219

79 0 0250,219

79.3

20 33



Depreciation Analysis

Item: Sale #1 Sale #2 Sale #3 Sale #4 Sale #5

Grantor

Grantee

Date

Size

Financing

Location

CEV Price $ $ $ $ $

Land Total $ $ $ $ $

Improvement Contribution $ $ $ $ $

Imp

rov

em

en

t A

bs

tra

cti

on

Improvement % of Price % % % % %

Replacement Cost

Reproduction Cost

RCN Improvements: $ $ $ $ $


Total Depreciation

% Depreciation of RCN % % % % %

Depreciation Allocation:

RCN Improvements: $ $ $ $ $

Less: % Physical: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Physical Depreciated RCN: $ $ $ $ $

Less: % Functional: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Physical and Functional $ $ $ $ $

Depreciated RCN:( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Less: % External:

De

pre

cia

tio

n A

na

lys

is


Analysis and Comments:

De

pre

cia

tio

n D

isc

us

sio

n

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d333HansenJones01/057,566Cash

Rediginger

3,200,0002,654,592545,40017.00

d335Ink Pen

Garyingly09/046,982Cash

Harder

2,269,2002,205,082

64,1183.00

d329Coyote Draw

Johnson12/026,359Cash

Rediginger

1,300,0001,222,720

94,8007.00

d331DonneeHeckell11/013,880Cash

Rediginger

800,000731,85568,1459.00

d326ThomSmith03/005,572Cash

Pie Town

724,000669,42054,6008.00

X

675,000545,450

19

675,00019 128,250

546,7500 0

546,7500 0

546,750

176,50064,100

64

176,50064 112,960

63,5400 0

63,5400 0

63,540

317,92494,708

70

317,92470 222,547

95,3770 0

95,3770 0

95,377

174,18068,258

61

174,18061 106,250

67,9300 0

67,9300 0

67,930

246,52054,630

78

246,52078 192,286

54,2340 0

54,2340 0

54,234

With the exception of d333 at 19% overall depreciation, the remaining sales show rates from 61% to 78%.

Sale d333 has newer buildings -- including a lodge, machine shed, and shop -- and markedly superior to the subject.

The subject is shown on the previous page with an overall depreciation rate of 79.3% -- or near the top of the range. This is consistent with

the analysis since the main house has limited remaining life by comparison to the other improved sales -- and should logically show a

higher rate of depreciation. Further, the subject's hanger shows $5.00 to $7.50/sf obsolescence by comparison to the remainder of the

market -- since its most logical use is for machine storage/shop with lower cost. Thus, the depreciation applied at 79.3% overall -- is in

balance with the rates shown by the improved sales.

21 33



Demo

2005-151

Section Divider V

Income Approach to Value Section

1. One page summarizing income, expenses, capitalization rate, and subject's indication from this approach.



Income Approach

Basis of Income Estimate: Cash Share Owner/Operator FAMC See Attached

Unit Stabilized Total Production Cash/Share/Owner's Income

Income Source Units Measure Yield Stabilized $/Unit Gross Income Share % Income

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

Improvements Included in Land Rent Rent: $ /mo., $ /yr. $

Stabilized Gross Income = $

Comments: (Typical area rental terms and conditions)

Gro

ss

In

co

me

Es

tim

ate

Expense Items: Additional Expenses: Additional Expenses: Additional Expenses:

Real Estate Tax $ $ $ $

Insurance $ $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $ $

Management $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $Total Expenses = $ ( %)

Ex

pe

ns

es

$ $

Sale Date Size Impvt % Gross Income Exp. Ratio Net Income CEV Price Cap Rate

% %

% %

% %

% %

% %

% %

Ca

p R

ate

In

fo

% %

Analysis/Comments:

Total Deeded Acres: Net Income / Cap Rate = Indicated Value

Gross Income: $ = $ / $ / % = $

Expenses: ( $ ) = $ /Income Approach Indication = $

Net Income: $ = $ /

Page of

Demo

2005-151

X

Grazing 4,500.00 Acre 15.00 67,500 100 67,500

X

67,500

There are only two leases contained within the sales documented for this report.

Sale 7 at $10.00/acre in 2004, and Sale 13 at $9.00/acre in 2001. Rental rates tend to lag behind increases shown by sales -- an can be

negotiated for up to five (5) years in duration. I have four (4) other cash leases below (data held in-file) supporting the conclusion above.

1. Kinsley/Nelson: 5,230 acres rented 2-15-05 for $12.50/acre. 15% cropland/hay, no lease, no buildings, and no coop shares.

2. Neiman/Rayburn: 3,680 acres rented 3-1-03 for $12.50/acre. 20% cropland/hay and additional 841 AUMs federal permit. No buildings.

3. Foxly/Layman: 8,840 acres rented 1-1-02 for $9.00/acre. 11% cropland/hay, 632 AUMs federal, and buildings. No coop shares.

4. Jarrard/Kelly: 6,130 acres rented 3-15-01 for $8.00/acre. 12% cropland/hay and small set of buildings. No coop shares.

4,780

978

2,025

6,750

Forest Lease 648

Soonover 10,000

Actual

Est. 1.5% contrib.

Estimated 3%

Estimated 10%

Actual

Actual25,181 37.31

d335 09/04 6,982 3 69,820 25.39 52,092 2,269,200 2.30

d330 05/03 6,469 4 48,518 28.11 34,879 989,500 3.52

d340 04/03 9,434 9 84,906 26.44 62,461 1,745,350 3.58

d329 12/02 6,359 7 54,052 28.57 38,611 1,300,000 2.97

d336 11/02 8,513 3 63,848 36.23 40,713 1,620,000 2.51

d328 03/02 6,667 4 43,336 33.65 28,755 920,000 3.13

d331 11/01 3,880 9 34,920 30.15 24,392 800,000 3.05

The improved sales show rates from 2.30% to 3.58%; however, degree of capacity from state and federal permits --

and coop shares have an impact on net income and corresponding rate from each sale. Sale d330 had no lease. Sale d335 had a mix of federal

and state AUMs. Sales d340, d329, d336, and d328 contained only State AUMs. Sale d331 is the only property with a Forest permit.

The improved and current sales should be stressed. Also, the subject's expense ratio is 37.3% -- higher than the majority of sales, but that is

attributed to the $10,000 annual cost for the Soonover shares. One can see a correlation between the expense ratios and cap rates, i.e., sales

with higher expenses support lower cap rates. Further, the most recent improved sale has a rate of 2.3%. I have applied a capitalization rate of

2.75% to the subject recognizing the contribution of the Forest permit and the impact of the coop shares (increases rate).

4,500.00

67,500 15.00 Acre

25,181 5.60 Acre

42,319 9.40 Acre

42,319 2.7500 1,538,873

(r) 1,539,000

22 33



Demo

2005-151

Section Divider VI

Sales Comparison Approach

1. Compare each of five (5) improved sales shown in grid on facing page to the subject (Sales 1-5).

2. Sales comparison grid -- compares the first five (5) improved sales to the subject (Sales 1-5).

[Note: Land and building mix adjustments shown after each individual 'comp' sheet].

3. Compares the second set of 5 sales to the subject (Improved Sales 6-10).

4. Second sales comparison grid -- compares improved Sales 6-10 to the subject.


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Compare Sales to Subject (SCA Sales 1-5)

Sale 1: Date: # Acres/Units: $/Ac-Unit: $


Comparison to Subject: Adjusted $/Acre or Unit: $













Page of

Demo

2005-151

d333 1/2005 7,566 423

Buyer is from Tennessee and purchased as an investment for recreational (hunting) purposes. The sellers purchased the property in January 1997 for

$760,000; then added substantial new buildings and developed wells, pipelines and stock tanks in all pastures. The house is a lodge-type home with an open design, large stone fireplace, and

wood cathedral ceiling; plus an attached two-car garage. There is a new 11,000 square-foot clear-span steel-frame building with a 2,000 square-foot heated shop attached. The deeded portions

are mostly undulating to rolling pastures (no pines) in two or three blocks -- but unit contiguous by virtue of State and Forest permits (8,120 acres of XX State and forest permits consisting of

rolling to rough timbered hills). 5.5 miles of Forest boundary of which 2 miles are deeded. This sale sets a new high for the area and reflects significant motivation for recreational uses.

354

Current sale of the 'old Marcel Place' located on the north side of the East Red Hills (Forest boundary and allotment) with significant land and improvement adjustments (see sale sheet). After

time, the current indication was $354/acre. Highly motivated recreational buyer and sale has considerably more buildings (quantity/quality) than the subject or surrounding sales.

d335 9/2004 6,982 325

The property is a mixture of rolling hayland, changing to rolling timber and open rolling pasture land. Access is good and fences are below average. Water is

provided by nine wells, several dams, and a few dugouts. The upper portion -- near the top of the West Red Hills has below average water; thus, the grass cover is above average in these areas. The ranch

has excellent fall and winter livestock protection which also provides habitat for wildlife (deer and turkey) with an occasional antelope at the lower elevations. There are two significant in-holdings, i.e.,

one immediately west of Harder (1,000 acres) and one in the northeastern portion of the ownership (240 acres). The buyer intends on developing commercial hunting, primarily deer hunting.

352

Like d333 above, this sale encompassed a part of the West Red Hills -- comparable to the subject and the North Red Hills -- also with Forest boundary and allotment. Small downward adjustment made

for inferior land mix and upward for buildings; then time-adjusted to $352.05/acre. Similar physical characteristics, slightly larger, with inferior access. Overall, a good indication of value for the subject.

d330 5/2003 6,469 153

This sale is about 30 miles northeast of Haver, or north of Mud Flats and situated in three (3) tracts. 2 tracts containing 720 acres are separated from the

main unit by approximately one mile. There are irregular boundaries and two in-holdings within the main unit. Sale bordered on the east by Williams County on Hay Creek and South Fork of the

Soonover River (live water). Rolling grassland that previously sold in 2002 for $842,516; however, seller spent $42,500 remodeling the houses.

356

2003 sale in an inferior area -- thus, an upward adjustment of $50/acre (an adjustment made to all Bink County sales). The water is superior with live water on the South Fork of the Soonover

River, but spotty trees and lacks Forest appeal in this locale. After land, building mix, and time adjustments, the current indication of $356/acre is rated as reasonable support -- but not a primary

indicator.

d340 4/2003 9,434 185

Sale 20 miles southeast of Buffalo. Buyer purchased adjacent ranch circa 1980 and expanding -- owner is rancher/feedlot operator from Colorado.

Two-tract sale (1 mile apart controlled by buyer) with above average improvements for the region. Main house built 1969 plus shelterbelts with extensive set of corrals (above average). Fences

are mostly 4-strand with some 5 and 6-wire -- all in average-good condition. 17 pastures in south unit and 4 pastures north; south portion has numerous pastures for "intensive" grazing

program. Water from 9 wells (2 mills), four miles of pipeline; and seasonal creeks. Owner estimated 500 AUs.

342

Sale about two years old and 20-25 miles south of the subject, but highly improved for the area. Property well managed with considerable cropland, CRP, and "go-back". After land, building

mix, location, and time adjustments, the current indication is $342/acre. This sale is rated again as reasonable support requiring only an upward adjustment for the lack of Forest or appeal.

d329 12/2002 6,359 204

Sale 5-8 miles west of Rediginger. The buyer indicated the ranch has above average water with dams, wells, and pipelines. There is a limited amount of

hayland. The Forest permit is typically used in the fall and winter and was a factor to the buyer. The Forest permit (Box Springs) is timbered and has scenic appeal. The northern portion of the

ranch has superior grass and was inventoried as "Pasture A". The remainder (south portion) has limited natural protection and inferior water (Pasture B). Grass condition below average due to

drought and over-grazing with buffalo. The BLM, County, and XX State leases total an additional 1,676 acres.

323

This sale represents the "southern portion" of the East Red Hills -- and borders d333 above -- with Forest boundary and allotment. It sold in December of 2002 to a very knowledgeable buyer --

formerly a Harding County resident. Sale has similar physical and economic characteristics. Overall, another good comparison for the subject at $323/acre.

23 33



Sales Comparison Approach (1-5)

Sale Data Subject Sale #1 Sale #2 Sale #3 Sale #4 Sale #5

Grantor (Seller)

Grantee (Buyer)

Source

Date Eff.

Eff. Unit Size/Unit /Sale Price

Finance Adjusted

CEV Price

Multiplier

Sa

le D

ata

Expense Ratio

The Appraiser has cited sales of similar property to the subject and considered these in the market analysis. The description below includes a dollar adjustment

reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the subject and the sales documented. When significant items are superior to the property

appraised, a negative adjustment is applied. If the item is inferior, a positive adjustment is applied. Thus, each sale is adjusted for the measurable dissimilarities and

each sale producing a separate value indication. The indications from each sale are then reconciled into one indication of value for this approach.

CEV Price/

LAND AND IMPROVEMENT ADJUSTMENTSLand Adjustment

Impvt. Adjustment

Adjusted Price

TIME ADJUSTMENTSYr. Mo. Periods

Smpl. Cmp. Rate

Auto Man. Time Adjustment

Time Adj. Price

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS

Adjustment

Adjustment

Adjustment

Adjustment

Adjustment

Net Adjustments

ADJUSTED PRICE

Analysis/Comments: (Discuss positive and negative aspects of each sale as they affect value)

Sales Comparison Approach Summary:

Property Basis (Value Range): $ to $ Sales Comparison Indication:

Unit Basis: $ / X = $ $

Sa

le C

om

pa

ris

on

Multiplier Basis: $ X (multiple) = $

Page of

Demo

2005-151

$/AU

06/05

4,500.00 Acres

d333 d335 d330 d340 d329

Hansen

Jones

Buyer

01/05

7,566

3,200,000

Cash

3,200,000

5,333.00

48.64

Ink Pen

Garyingly

FCS/Co.

09/04

6,982

2,269,200

Cash

2,269,200

5,673.00

25.39

dePaul

Ladone

Realtor/County

05/03

6,469

989,500

Cash

989,500

3,958.00

28.11

Small

Bleeder Ranch

Buyer/Seller

04/03

9,434

1,745,350

Cash

1,745,350

3,173.00

26.44

Coyote Draw

Johnson

Buyer

12/02

6,359

1,300,000

Cash

1,300,000

3,250.00

28.57

Acres 422.96 325.02 152.95 185.00 204.43

-25.74

-57.04

340.18

-2.80

5.54

327.76

86.83

11.19

250.97

51.92

0.35

237.27

48.82

1.85

255.10

X

X

X

0.41

10.00

13.56

353.74

0.75

10.00

24.29

352.05

2.09

10.00

55.32

306.29

2.17

10.00

54.52

291.79

2.50

10.00

68.64

323.74

LocationHarding County Harding Co. Harding Co. Bink Co. Harding Co. Harding Co.

50.00

AppealAdjoins Forest Yes: E Red Hills Yes: E Red Hills None None Yes: E Red Hills

50.00 50.00

WaterSeasonal/W/Spr Seasonal/W/Spr Seasonal/W/Spr Soonover River Seasonal/W/Spr Seasonal/W/Spr

-50.00

-69 27 203 157 119

354 352 356 342 323

Sale #d333 at $354/acre and Sale #d335 at $352/acre have relatively the same characteristics as the subject and each other. They were compared to

Sale #4 (d340) lacking Forest boundary/appeal ($292/acre after land-mix, building mix, and time adjustments) -- showing about $50 to $60/acre for

Forest impact. I used $50/acre. If the reader had the opportunity to view the entire 53 sales, it would be clear Bink County is inferior to Harding (too

many sales to include for demo) -- at roughly $50/acre for location. The three (3) Bink County sales also all had live water frontage -- an element that

the subject and two most similar sales do not. Thus, the direct pairing of Sales d333 and d335 in Harding County to those three (3) Bink County sales

includes both inferior location and live water impact. The 'subtotal' shown by the Bink County properties (d330 at $306.29/acre; d336 at

$329.50/acre; and d328 at $303.43/acre) collectively show a $50/acre difference for both factors combined. Thus after examining the larger Bink

County bank of sales, I concluded there was offsetting elements of +$50/acre for lack of Forest boundary and (-) $50/acre for the superior impact of

live water -- with +$50/acre added for Bink County. (continued >>)

350.00 Acre 4,500.00 Acres 1,575,000.00 (r) 1,575,000

24 33


Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report UAAR® File No #Compare Sales to Subject (SCA Sales 6-10)
















Page of

Demo

2005-151

d336 11/2002 8,513 190

The ranch adjoins buyer's ranch and has been leasing the ranch the last several years. There are numerous improvements; however, only a portion of

the buildings contribute value. Most of the structures inventoried are in fair to poor condition. The majority of the hayland is along the Soonover River and creek bottoms with some upland

hay ground -- all of which needs to be re-seeded. A portion of the pasture, along the Soonover River and Cabin Creek, has been inventoried as "Pasture A" -- or pasture with superior moisture

and carrying capacity by comparison to the remainder. There are about 3,000 acres of State lease that block the unit.

379

Sale included since is was viewed as a "headquarters unit", but the buildings were near the end of their economic lives -- much like the majority of the buildings on the subject. The sale is

located on the South Fork of the Soonover River. After land, building mix, location and time adjustments -- upward adjustments for inferior location and appeal were offset to a degree by

superior (live) water. The current indication of $379/acre is rated as support, but not a primary indicator.

d328 3/2002 6,667 138

Ranch in northwest Bink County in three tracts (1 mile apart) with South Soonover River running through the southern portion. Older set of

improvements. 171 acres of hayland, but several years since its been replanted (production about 1.25 tons/acre). Buyer sold a ranch and completed a 1031-exchange. Water from dams and

river is only average. Sale fenced into two large pastures and three small 'traps' adjacent to the headquarters. All minerals owned transferred, but not a factor in this locale.

353

Ranch in northwest Bink County with South Soonover River running through the southern portion. Older set of improvements. Buyer sold another ranch in southern Bink County and used a

1031-exchange. Water is only average on the balance of the range away from the river. Three adjustments applied after land, buildings, and time -- for an indication of $353/acre. Again

supportive, but like the remaining Bink County sales -- six total adjustments applied and less weight given.

d331 11/2001 3,880 206

Sale located west of Rediginger about 7 miles. $100,000 in livestock, equipment, and hay transferred with sale and deducted from total price. A sizable

Forest permit adjoins property on its northeastern corner. The improvements include a remodeled home with walk-out basement, a shop and several pole sheds. The other outbuildings do not

contribute value. Also, there are 320 acres of State lease and 40 acres of BLM within the unit that do not contribute to value due to size and lease cost (no leasehold advantage to State leases).

The buyers moved a double-wide mobile home on-site after purchase. Buyers sold a property in State YY and relocated (1031-exchange).

330

This is the west portion of the East Red Hills and borders d333 and d335 above -- also have common Forest boundary and allotments with those sales. Sold in November of 2001. After land,

building mix, and time adjustments, the current indication was $330/acre. Slightly inferior water and access, but sale has offsetting (smaller) size. By comparison, another strong indication of

value for the subject.

d326 3/2000 5,572 130

Sale south of Buffalo and 2 miles east of Highway 200. The improvements are generally in fair condition with a new set of steel corrals. The second

house will be used for hunters. The hayland was previously in CRP and fenced inside pastures (poor management). Water is provided by dams and wells. The ranch has limited natural winter

protection. Approximately 1,800 acres of State lease was transferred to the buyer; but it does not contribute measurably to value since the lessee pays a base lease plus taxes in this state -- as if

it were private land. Therefore, there is no leasehold advantage in the State lease in this configuration and locale.

382

Sale in Harding County about five miles northeast of Rediginger. After land, building mix, and time adjustments, the current indication was $332.11/acre. The sale lacks proximity to forest

and/or appeal; thus, an upward adjustment of $50/acre applied. The sale is about 1,000 acres larger -- a factor which has no measurable impact. The final adjusted price of $382/acre -- clearly

shows a strong market for a property with lower appeal.

d334 10/1998 4,640 105

Northern portion of sale is timbered on top of the Red Hills. Buildings in transitional area between timber and lower pastures. Good gravel road to

buildings and through property east/west. House is modular (original house burned in a fire in the 1980's). Four pastures plus four smaller hay fields. Northeast portion is steeper, pine

covered hills with deciduous trees in several seasonal drainages. Four springs on ranch and it has above average stockwater. Gas wells/pipeline on property, but no mineral rights.

315

Sale located on southwest face of the West Red Hills -- and joins d335 on the prior grid -- with some deeded pines (most pines are in this area belong to neighbor) and deciduous trees in

seasonal drainages. Old sale, but included due to location, and market appeal. Slightly larger with inferior access. After land, building mix, and time adjustments -- the current indication of

$315/acre is rated equal to the subject is likely below the subject's value.

25 33



Sales Comparison Approach (6-10)

Sale Data Subject Sale #6 Sale #7 Sale #8 Sale #9 Sale #10

Grantor (Seller)

Grantee (Buyer)

Source

Date Eff.

Eff. Unit Size/Units /Sale Price

Finance Adjusted

CEV Price

Multiplier

Sa

le D

ata

Expense Ratio

The Appraiser has cited sales of similar property to the subject and considered these in the market analysis. The description below includes a dollar adjustment

reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the subject and the sales documented. When significant items are superior to the property

appraised, a negative adjustment is applied. If the item is inferior, a positive adjustment is applied. Thus, each sale is adjusted for the measurable dissimilarities and

each sale producing a separate value indication. The indications from each sale are then reconciled into one indication of value for this approach.

CEV Price/

LAND AND IMPROVEMENT ADJUSTMENTSLand Adjustment

Impvt. Adjustment

Adjusted Price

TIME ADJUSTMENTSYr. Mo. Periods

Smpl Cmp. Rate

Auto. Man. Time Adjustment

Time Adj. Price

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS

Adjustment

Adjustment

Adjustment

Adjustment

Adjustment

Net Adjustments

ADJUSTED PRICE

Analysis/Comments: (Discuss positive and negative aspects of each sale as they affect value)

Sa

le C

om

pa

ris

on

Page of

Demo

2005-151

06/05

4,500.00 Acres

d336 d328 d331 d326 d334

Karen, R.

L-Bar

Auction

11/02

8,513

1,620,000

Cash

1,620,000

3,600.00

36.23

Applby Ranch

Klaopp

Buyer

03/02

6,667

920,000

WD

920,000

3,538.00

33.65

Donnee

Heckell

Buyer

11/01

3,880

900,000

Cash

800,000

2,388.00

30.15

Thom

Smith

Realtor

03/00

5,572

724,000

Cash

724,000

2,069.00

29.22

Hector, L.

Bort

FCS

10/98

4,640

485,000

Cash

485,000

2,109.00

31.76

Acres 190.30 137.99 206.19 129.95 104.53

56.92

10.45

257.67

84.37

0.24

222.60

31.46

-3.13

234.52

65.67

5.74

201.36

57.80

4.24

166.57

X

X

X

2.58

10.00

71.83

329.50

3.25

10.00

80.83

303.43

3.58

10.00

95.37

329.89

5.25

10.00

130.75

332.11

6.67

10.00

147.98

314.55

LocationHarding County Bink County Bink County Harding County Harding County Harding County

50 50

AppealAdjoins Forest None None Yes: W Red Hills None Yes: W Red Hills

50 50 50

WaterSeasonal/W/Spr Soonover River Soonover River Seasonal/W/Spr Dams/Wells Wells/Dams/Spr

-50 -50

189 215 124 252 210

379 353 330 382 315

The overall range of values varied from $315 to $382/acre and relatively consistent data. The most current sale (d333) at $354/acre and sale

requiring the fewest adjustments (Sale d335) at $352/acre are very similar.

The adjustments were minimal after the land, buildings, and time adjustments, i.e., for location within the respective counties -- seven of

which were in the subject's immediate area -- and appeal (forest boundary and live water). In retrospect, I have confidence in the resale

analysis and that the 10%/month conclusion is a reasonable reflection of the market, i.e., the older sales adjusted to relatively the same

values as the current sales.

I have concluded $350/acre for the subject; however, it is noted this includes the contribution of Forest permit at roughly $50,000 and the

Soonover Grazing Units at $300,000 -- or about $78-$80/acre. This leaves roughly $270 on the base ranch.

26 33



Demo

2005-151

Section Divider VI

Reconciliation & Value Conclusion

1. Reconciliation & Final Value Estimate

2. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

3. Appraiser Certification

4. Appraiser Qualifications

5. Appraiser Licenses



File No. #

Page of

Demo

2005-151

$/AU Summary Charts

% Hap % Time 10% Land OnlyImpt. & AUs $/AU Time 10%

GrantorDate Price AUs Contrib $/AU Crop Lease w/Blgs $/AU

337 1 Newton Ranch4/1/2005 972,000$ 375 -$ 2,592$ 10.7% 4.9% 2,644$ 2,644$ 339 2 Rayford5/1/2004 544,000$ 200 -$ 2,720$ 75.0% 4.1% 3,028$ 3,028$ 327 3 Angus Breeders4/1/2004 376,750$ 250 -$ 1,507$ 80.0% 10.3% 1,691$ 1,691$ 332 4 Giacometto3/1/2004 515,000$ 150 -$ 3,433$ 50.0% 18.7% 3,884$ 3,884$ 338 5 Pfiffer Ranches8/15/2002 290,000$ 120 -$ 2,417$ 0.0% 64.8% 3,167$ 3,167$ 333 6 Hansen1/1/2005 3,200,000$ 600 545,408$ 5,333$ 27.1% 34.7% 5,570$ 4,661$ 335 7 Ink Pen9/1/2004 2,269,200$ 400 64,117$ 5,673$ 33.5% 5.7% 6,116$ 5,956$ 330 8 dePaul5/1/2003 989,500$ 250 32,032$ 3,958$ 0.0% 0.0% 4,848$ 4,720$ 340 9 Small4/1/2003 1,745,350$ 550 157,840$ 3,173$ 45.5% 11.1% 3,918$ 3,631$ 329 10 Coyote Draw12/1/2002 1,300,000$ 400 94,780$ 3,250$ 15.8% 14.6% 4,141$ 3,904$ 336 11 Karen, R.11/1/2002 1,620,000$ 450 52,100$ 3,600$ 23.0% 16.7% 4,623$ 4,507$ 328 12 Applby Ranch3/1/2002 920,000$ 260 39,266$ 3,538$ 16.5% 0.0% 4,844$ 4,693$ 331 13 Donnee11/1/2001 800,000$ 335 68,145$ 2,388$ 59.7% 11.1% 3,373$ 3,170$ 326 14 Thom3/1/2000 724,000$ 350 54,368$ 2,069$ 60.7% 0.0% 3,427$ 3,271$ 334 15 Hector, L.10/1/1998 485,000$ 230 51,280$ 2,109$ 39.1% 4.4% 3,998$ 3,775$



327 3 Angus Breeders4/1/2004 376,750$ 250 -$ 1,507$ 80.0% 10.3% 1,691$ 1,691$ 339 2 Rayford5/1/2004 544,000$ 200 -$ 2,720$ 75.0% 4.1% 3,028$ 3,028$ 326 14 Thom3/1/2000 724,000$ 350 54,368$ 2,069$ 60.7% 0.0% 3,427$ 3,271$ 331 13 Donnee11/1/2001 800,000$ 335 68,145$ 2,388$ 59.7% 11.1% 3,373$ 3,170$ 332 4 Giacometto3/1/2004 515,000$ 150 -$ 3,433$ 50.0% 18.7% 3,884$ 3,884$ 340 9 Small4/1/2003 1,745,350$ 550 157,840$ 3,173$ 45.5% 11.1% 3,918$ 3,631$ 334 15 Hector, L.10/1/1998 485,000$ 230 51,280$ 2,109$ 39.1% 4.4% 3,998$ 3,775$ 335 7 Ink Pen9/1/2004 2,269,200$ 400 64,117$ 5,673$ 33.5% 5.7% 6,116$ 5,956$ 333 6 Hansen1/1/2005 3,200,000$ 600 545,408$ 5,333$ 27.1% 34.7% 5,570$ 4,661$

336 11 Karen, R.11/1/2002 1,620,000$ 450 52,100$ 3,600$ 23.0% 16.7% 4,623$ 4,507$ 328 12 Applby Ranch3/1/2002 920,000$ 260 39,266$ 3,538$ 16.5% 0.0% 4,844$ 4,693$ 329 10 Coyote Draw12/1/2002 1,300,000$ 400 94,780$ 3,250$ 15.8% 14.6% 4,141$ 3,904$ 337 1 Newton Ranch4/1/2005 972,000$ 375 -$ 2,592$ 10.7% 4.9% 2,644$ 2,644$ 338 5 Pfiffer Ranches8/15/2002 290,000$ 120 -$ 2,417$ 0.0% 64.8% 3,167$ 3,167$ 330 8 dePaul5/1/2003 989,500$ 250 32,032$ 3,958$ 0.0% 0.0% 4,848$ 4,720$



338 5 Pfiffer Ranches8/15/2002 290,000$ 120 -$ 2,417$ 0.0% 64.8% 3,167$ 3,167$ 333 6 Hansen1/1/2005 3,200,000$ 600 545,408$ 5,333$ 27.1% 34.7% 5,570$ 4,661$ 332 4 Giacometto3/1/2004 515,000$ 150 -$ 3,433$ 50.0% 18.7% 3,884$ 3,884$ 336 11 Karen, R.11/1/2002 1,620,000$ 450 52,100$ 3,600$ 23.0% 16.7% 4,623$ 4,507$ 329 10 Coyote Draw12/1/2002 1,300,000$ 400 94,780$ 3,250$ 15.8% 14.6% 4,141$ 3,904$

340 9 Small4/1/2003 1,745,350$ 550 157,840$ 3,173$ 45.5% 11.1% 3,918$ 3,631$ 331 13 Donnee11/1/2001 800,000$ 335 68,145$ 2,388$ 59.7% 11.1% 3,373$ 3,170$ 327 3 Angus Breeders4/1/2004 376,750$ 250 -$ 1,507$ 80.0% 10.3% 1,691$ 1,691$ 335 7 Ink Pen9/1/2004 2,269,200$ 400 64,117$ 5,673$ 33.5% 5.7% 6,116$ 5,956$ 337 1 Newton Ranch4/1/2005 972,000$ 375 -$ 2,592$ 10.7% 4.9% 2,644$ 2,644$ 334 15 Hector, L.10/1/1998 485,000$ 230 51,280$ 2,109$ 39.1% 4.4% 3,998$ 3,775$ 339 2 Rayford5/1/2004 544,000$ 200 -$ 2,720$ 75.0% 4.1% 3,028$ 3,028$ 330 8 dePaul5/1/2003 989,500$ 250 32,032$ 3,958$ 0.0% 0.0% 4,848$ 4,720$ 328 12 Applby Ranch3/1/2002 920,000$ 260 39,266$ 3,538$ 16.5% 0.0% 4,844$ 4,693$ 326 14 Thom3/1/2000 724,000$ 350 54,368$ 2,069$ 60.7% 0.0% 3,427$ 3,271$

Ind

ex

Sa

le

Ind

ex

Sa

le

Sales Sorted by % AUs from Hay

Subject at 12%

Subject at 27%

Ind

ex

Sa

le

Sales Sorted by % AUs from Lease

27 33



Reconciliation and Opinion of Value

Cost Approach $

Income Approach $

Sales Comparison Approach $

Su

mm

ary

Analysis of Each Approach and Opinion of Value:

Dis

cu

ss

ion

& C

orr

ela

tio

n o

f V

alu

es

Opinion Of Value - (Estimated Marketing Time months, see attached) $

Cost of Repairs $

Cost of Additions $

Allocation: (Total Deeded Units: ) Land: $ $ / ( %)

Land Improvements: $ $ / ( %)

Structural Improvement Contribution: $ $ / ( %)

Value Estimate of Non-Realty Items:

Value of Personal Property (local market basis) $

Value of Other Non-Realty Interests: $

Non-Realty Items: $ $ / ( %)

Leased Fee Value (Remaining Term of Encumbrance ) $ / ( %)$Leasehold Value $ / ( %)$Overall Value $ / ( 100 %)$

All

oc

ati

on

of

Va

lue

Page of

Demo

2005-151

(r) 1,554,000

(r) 1,539,000

(r) 1,575,000

This portion of the report is intended as a check on the preliminary indications

from each approach. The sales considered have somewhat similar physical characteristics. The land value in the cost approach at

$1,489,000 plus the structural contribution of $65,169 produced a final indication of $1,554,000 -- rounded. It is noted, improvements

to the land such as wells, fences, etc., are included in the land value. The cost approach indication is given considerable weight in this

analysis since the majority of the value is held in the land and market sales have been used to estimate the contribution of the various

production categories on a price per acre basis.

The income approach produced a value conclusion of $1,539,000 through the capitalization of cash rental income. Less weight is given

to this indication because buyers are not overly concerned about income with only 2.75% cash-on-cash returns. While this may not seem

logical to most readers, the market is moving upward about 10%/year; so, the actual yield is about 12.75% (10% for appreciation and

2.75% from cash flow). In any event, this approach is only viewed as support to the remaining indices.

The sales comparison approach estimate at $1,575,000 is also given weight in final review. Each of ten (10) improved sales were

adjusted for land-mix and building differences, then adjusted for time; then 3-4 sales were adjusted for inferior location and appeal (water

and forest impact) that resulted in an acceptable range of value from $315 to $382/acre. After review, the most recent and most similar

sale (fewest adjustments) provided a very narrow range of value from $352 to $354/acre.

As a cross-check on the 'per acre' analysis employed above, I have also viewed the 'price per animal unit'. While prices are moving away

from this traditional method of analysis, the subject's locale remains more 'ag' than most. The charts on the facing page show selling

prices divided by their respective carrying capacities, or $/AU. Those sales were then sorted by percentage AUs from hay (middle chart)

and from lease (bottom chart). Less weight should be given to Sales 1-5 since they lack buildings. Improved Sales 6-15 show

time-adjusted prices from $3,333 to $6,116/AU; however, the percentage of capacity from hay has a significant impact on this range.

Chart #2 shows the subject between $4,623 and $5,570/AU -- the most likely range for the subject, or from $1,502,475 to $1,810,250.

This is roughly the same range demonstrated by the approaches above from $1,539,000 to $1,575,000.

I have concluded $1,575,000 for the subject placing emphasis on ten (10) sales that were consistently analyzed and viewed in comparison

to the subject's location and physical attributes. NOTE: There is no personal property or trade-fixtures included in the value opinion.

6-12 1,575,000

4,500.00 1,510,000 336 Acre 96

0

65,000 14.44 Acre 4

0

0

50,000 11.11 Acre 3

1,575,000 350.00 Acre

28 33

Forest LeaseIncludes $300,000 of Soonover Coop Shares

NONE INCLUDED



Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

The certification of the Appraiser(s) appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions as are setforth in the report.

1. The Appraiser(s) assume no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the Appraiser(s) render anyopinion as to title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership.

2. Sketches in the report may show approximate dimensions and are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The Appraiser(s) have made nosurvey of the property. Drawings and/or plats are not represented as an engineer's work product, nor are they provided for legal reference.

3. The Appraiser(s) are not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unlessarrangements have been previously made.

4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations of components must not be usedoutside of this appraisal and are invalid if so used.

5. The Appraiser(s) have, in the process of exercising due diligence, requested, reviewed, and considered information provided by the ownership of the propertyand client, and the Appraiser(s) have relied on such information and assumes there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, orstructures, which would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser(s) assume no responsibility for such conditions, for engineering which might be requiredto discover such factors, or the cost of discovery or correction.

6. While the Appraiser(s) have have not inspected the subject property and have have not considered the information developed in the course of such inspection, together with the information provided by the ownership and client, the Appraiser(s) are not qualified to verify or detect the presence of hazardous substances by visual inspection or otherwise, nor qualified to determine the effect, if any, of known or unknown substances present. Unless otherwisestated, the final value conclusion is based on the subject property being free of hazardous waste contaminations, and it is specifically assumed that present andsubsequent ownerships will exercise due diligence to ensure that the property does not become otherwise contaminated.

7. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser(s), and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed tobe true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser(s) can be assumed by the Appraiser(s).

8. Unless specifically cited, no value has been allocated to mineral rights or deposits.

9. Water requirements and information provided has been relied on and, unless otherwise stated, it is assumed that:

a. All water rights to the property have been secured or perfected, that there are no adverse easements or encumbrances, and the propertycomplies with Bureau of Reclamation or other state and federal agencies;

b. Irrigation and domestic water and drainage system components, including distribution equipment and piping, are real estate fixtures;c. Any mobile surface piping or equipment essential for water distribution, recovery, or drainage is secured with the title to real estate; andd. Title to all such property conveys with the land.

10. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by applicable law and/or by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organization(s)with which the Appraiser(s) are affiliated.

11. Neither all nor any part of the report, or copy thereof, shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report without the writtenconsent of the Appraiser. This report was prepared for the client's use at the client's sole discretion within the framework of the function stated in the reportand its use for any other purpose is beyond the scope contemplated in the appraisal.

12. Where the appraisal conclusions are subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingentupon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner consistent with the plans, specifications and/or scope of work relied upon in the appraisal.

13. Acreage of land types and measurements of improvements are based on physical inspection of the subject property unless otherwise noted in this appraisal report.

14. EXCLUSIONS. The Appraiser(s) considered and used the three independent approaches to value (cost, income, and sales comparison) where applicable in valuingthe resources of the subject property for determining a final value conclusion. Explanation for the exclusion of any of the three independent approaches to value indetermining a final value conclusion has been disclosed in this report.

15. DEPARTURE RULE. The DEPARTURE RULE of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) permits limited exceptions to specificrequirements provided the exceptions, in the judgment of the appraiser, will not confuse or mislead the client or intended users of the report. If the DEPARTURERULE is invoked, the Appraiser(s) have advised the client that the scope of this assignment is not so limited as to mislead or confuse and that the limitations aredisclosed in the report. Explanation for invoking the USPAP DEPARTURE RULE has been disclosed in the appropriate sections of this report.

16. The Appraiser(s) liability is limited to the fee charged for the report and professional services.

17. Acceptance of the report by the client constitutes acceptance of all assumptions and limiting conditions contained in the report.

18. Other Contingent and Limiting Conditions:

Page of

Demo

2005-151

X X

Only the surface estate has been appraised. The sub-surface estate, to whatever extent owned, have been disregarded.

29 33



File No #

Appraiser Certification

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 (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject or this report, and no(or the specified) personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;

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

5. my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results;

6. my compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predeterminedvalue or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulatedresult, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;

7. the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan;

8. my analyses, opinions,and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice;

9. I have have not 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. (If there are exceptions,the name of each individual providing significant real property appraisal assistance must be stated.)

Others:

Effective Date of Appraisal: $Opinion of Value:

Appraiser:

Signature:Property Inspection Qualifications

Inspection Date Attached

Name: Yes Yes

License#: No No

Certification#:

Appraiser has inspected verified analyzedDate Signed:the sales contained herein.

Page of

Demo

2005-151

X

Designated appraisers must meet continuing education requirements. I am currently certified by the professional organizations

to which I belong. I am also currently certified in four states (including State XX) and hold or have held temporary licenses in several

others.

06/16/05 1,575,000

Demo X

06/16/05

X

X X X

30 33



File No #

UASFLA Appraiser Certification

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 the personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions of the appraiser;

3. the appraiser has no present or prospective interest in the property appraised and no personal interest or bias with

respect to the parties involved;

4. the compensation received by the appraiser for the appraisal is not contingent on the analyses, opinions, or conclusions

reached or reported;

5. the appraisal was made and the appraisal report prepared in conformity with the Uniform Appraisal Standards For

Federal Land Acquisitions;

6. the appraisal was made and the appraisal report prepared in conformity with the Appraisal Foundation's Uniform Standards

of Professional Appraisal Practice, except to the extent that the Uniform Appraisal Standards For Federal Land Acquisitions14required invocation of USPAP'S Jurisdictional Exception Rule, as described in Section D-1 of the Uniform Appraisal

Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions;

7. the appraiser has made a personal inspection of the property appraised and that the property owner, or his/her designated

representative, was given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser on the property inspection;

8. no one provided significant professional assistance to the appraiser. (If professional assistance was provided the appraiser,

the name of the individual(s) providing such assistance must be stated and their professional qualifications should be included

in the addenda of the appraisal report. This requirement includes both professional appraisal assisstance and providers

of subsidiary assistance, e.g., planning and permitting consultants, engineers, cost estimators, marketing consultants.)

Others:

Effective Date of Appraisal: $Value Conclusion:

Appraiser:

Signature:Property Inspection Qualifications

Inspection Date Attached

Name: Yes Yes

License#: No No

Certification#:

Appraiser has inspected verified analyzedDate Signed:the sales contained herein.

Page of

Demo

2005-151

NOTE: 'Yellow Book' Certification would have been included, if this were an UASFLA assignment.

06/16/05 1,575,000

Demo X

06/16/05

X

X X X

31 33



File No. #

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Appraiser Qualifications

32 33



File No. #

Page of

Demo

2005-151

Licenses & Certifications

33 33



Demo

2005-151

Sales Addenda

1. Unimproved Sales 1-5

2. Improved Sales 6-15



File No #

Index # Database # Sale #Grantor Sales Price A Property Type

Grantee Other Contrib. B Assured Grazing

Deeded Acres Net Sale Price C

Mo/Yr Cur. Sale $/Deeded Acre D

Mo/Yr Prior Sale Financing E

Prior CEV Price % Fin. Adj. F

Prior Index # CEV Price G

Analysis Code SCA Unit Type H

Source Eff. Unit Size I

Motivation SCA $/Unit J

Highest & Best Use Multiplier Unit K

State/Cnty Code / Multiplier No. L

County/Zone / Primary Land Use M

Area/Region / Pri. Commodity N

SEC/TWP/RGE / / Sale: Unimproved Improved Lease

Location Cost: Replacement Reproduction Resale

Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is

Unimproved Database #Land AnalysisLand Use Ratios Acres $/Acre Unit Size Unit Type $/Unit Total Unit Value

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

An

aly

sis

CEV Price $ - Land Contribution $ = Improvement Contribution $

Cost and Depreciation Summary

Physical Depreciation % Functional Obsolescence % External Obsolescence % Total Depreciation %

Total RCN $ Total Improvement Contribution: $ Improvement As % of Price %

Income Summary

Summary Total Expenses / Stabilized G.I. = Expense Ratio % Total Expenses = $

Net Income / CEV Price = Cap Rate % Net Income = $

Co

st/

Inco

me

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

1 d337 1

Newton Ranch

Humvee

2,465.26

4/2005

4/2001

665,000

7040

Auction

Expansion

Agricultural

XX 63

Harding 2

33 19N 4E

Camp Creek

972,000

972,000

394.28

Cash

972,000

Acres

2,651.35

366.61

AUs

2,592.00

Pasture

Livestock

Supp Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities E/W - T in Area

Terrain Und/Roll

Fences Ave/Good

Elevation 3100

Stockwater Good

Severances Creeks/Roads

AU Capacity 375

Water Rights 1901 & 1903

Mineral Rts. All Owned

Doc: Bk/Pg 64/88

X

X X

See Attached

Cropland A 100.00 500.00

Cropland B 80.00 400.00

Hayland 75.00 160.00 400.00 64,000

Pasture A 50.00 164.00 300.00 49,200

Pasture B 40.00 1,701.26 235.00 399,796

Irrigated Land 300.00 240.00 1,200.00 288,000

Subby/Btms/Pine 150.00 200.00 750.00 150,000

Forest Permit 220.00 AUMs 100.00 22,000

BLM Permit

Other

2,465.26 386.00 220.00 100.00 972,996

972,000 972,996

8,542 36,975 23.10 8,542

28,433 972,000 2.93 28,433

Sale located 6-7 miles north of Camp Creek between the county road and forest -- with 1.75 miles of forest boundary (1,000

acres in permit). Sold at auction with four active bidders. Buyer joins the sale on the southeast edge. Stockwater is provided from a 50-acre

reservoir plus 3 other dams, 5 wells, one flowing spring, and live Slick Creek -- good by market standards. Purportedly there is a sizeable gravel

reserve in a partially mined pit in the northeastern corner of Section 5; however, this had no impact on the sale price. Average recreational

influence bordering the forest with deer, antelope, and turkey. 1901 water rights for 1,000 inches on 240 acres plus 1903 rights for another

1,000 inches on 160 acres -- but the 160-acre second right is included in the 240 acres shown in 1901. Simply, there are "double" rights on 160

acres with 80 acres having "single" rights. I have inventoried only the irrigated "wet" acres at 240. There is approximately 160 acres of hayland,

164 acres of "go-back", and 200 acres of "subby" bottoms along live Slick Creek and Plum Creek.



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is


% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

An

aly

sis





Income Summary



Co

st/

Inco

me

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

22 d339 2

Rayford

Doolittle

1,968.35

5/2004

5/1998

300,000

7040

Buyer

Expansion

Agriculture

XX

Harding

9 16N 7E

Beach

544,000

544,000

276.37

WD

544,000

Acres

1,968.35

276.37

AUs

2,720.00

Pasture

Livestock

Supp Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Paved

Utilities E -- In Area

Terrain Und/Roll

Fences Average

Elevation 2850

Stockwater Ave

Severances Rvr/Rds/Inhold

AUs 200

Water Rights No


Book/Page 64/57

X

X X

Attached

Cropland A 100.00 400.00

Cropland B 80.00 350.00

Hayland 75.00 700.00 350.00 245,000

Pasture A 50.00 1,268.35 230.00 291,721

Pasture B 40.00 195.00

Irrigated Land 300.00 1,150.00

Subby/Btms/Pine 150.00 400.00


BLM Permit

Other

1,968.35 272.68 97.00 75.00 543,996

544,000 543,996

5,248 24,600 21.33 5,248

19,352 544,000 3.56 19,352

Sale located immediately east of the county airport. Highway 200 forms the south boundary and a county road traverses through

the northwest corner and along north boundary. If Beach were growing, this would be a good candidate for development; however, there is no

demand. The seller had listed for several years and was not willing to negotiate price -- and appears the market ultimately increased to the asking

price. Water included a dam and well with windmill; plus the Smith River extends through the south-central portion. Due to drought, water was

not adequate and the buyer developed a new well, pipeline and tanks.



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is


% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

An

aly

sis





Income Summary



Co

st/

Inco

me

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

3 d327 3

Angus Breeders

Spanish Trail

1,280.32

4/2004

4/2001

268,000

7040

Buyer

Investment

Ag/Rec

XX

Harding

2 19N 4E

Highliner

376,750

376,750

294.26

Cash

376,750

Acres

1,280.32

294.26

AUs

1,507.00

Hay/CRP

Lvstk/Feed

Supplemental

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Paved

Utilities E -- T In Area

Terrain Und/Roll

Fences Ave-Fair

Elevation 2850

Stockwater Ave

Severances Ck/Sm. Elec

AU Capacity 250

Water Rights No

Mineral Rts. None

Book/Page 64/100

X

X X

Lots 1-4, S2N2 of 2-T19N-R4E. W2SW of 25; SWSW of 26; S2 of 34; S2, S2N2, NENE of 35.

Cropland A 100.00 450.00

Cropland B 375.00

Hayland/CRP 840.00 325.00 273,000

Pasture A 235.00

Pasture B 440.00 190.00 83,600

Irrigated Land 1,200.00

Subby/Btms/Pine 700.00


BLM Permit 213.00 AUMs 50.00 10,650

Other

1,280.00 278.59 308.00 65.42 376,750

376,750 376,750

4,758 22,400 21.24 4,758

17,642 376,750 4.68 17,642

Unimproved sale in two tract -- the largest is located 1.5 miles south of Highliner -- east of Highway 45 (west boundary for

0.5-mile). The buyer plans to develop pheasant and prairie dog hunting. Winding Creek (seasonal) enters the west boundary at highway; then

curves northeasterly for 2.5 miles -- the widest part of the unit -- then runs into Brown Lake about 2-3 miles further northeast. Rocky Butte

delineates the southern boundary. A large portion of the property (66%) is enrolled in the CRP program. Buyer indicated the CRP payments (6

years remaining) contributed about $100/acre to the sale -- but that was based on all 1,280 acres. After analysis, this appears to be the sum of the

gross payments. Remaining pasture has limited utility and inventoried at $190/acre. The buyer is an investor (dentist 555-553-3555).



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is


% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

An

aly

sis





Income Summary



Co

st/

Inco

me

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

4 d332 4

Giacometto

Petronik

2,920.00

3/2003

3/1998

320,000

7040

Buyer

Investment

Agriculture

XX 63

Harding

19 20N 5E

Highliner

515,000

515,000

176.37

Cash

515,000

Acres

2,920.00

176.37

$/AU

3,433.00

Pasture

Livestock

Pasture/Range

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities In Area

Terrain Rolling

Fences Ave-Fair

Elevation 3200

Stockwater Average

Elevation 3200

AU Capacity 150

Water Rights No

Mineral Rts. None

Book/Page 63/251

X

X X

(Attached)

Cropland A 100.00 400.00

Cropland B 80.00 315.00

Hayland 75.00 300.00 295.00 88,500

Pasture A 50.00 200.00

Pasture B 40.00 2,620.00 157.00 411,340



Forest Permit

BLM Permit 337.00 AUMs 45.00 15,165

Other

2,920.00 171.18 337.00 45.00 515,005

515,000 515,005

500,000.0

5,847 21,900 26.70 5,847

16,053 515,000 3.12 16,053

Sale located 15 miles northwest of Highland. Buyer purchased the property to develop a small cow-calf operation. Buyer works

in the nearby oil field. Approximately 300 acres of cropland/hayland in small fields -- most less than 10 acres each. The sale includes a seasonal

drainage (Upper Mule Creek) which includes a few trees and springs that extends southeasterly from Ash Hollow Butte. The former hayland

appears to have been cropped after sale.



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is


% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

An

aly

sis





Income Summary



Co

st/

Inco

me

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

5 d338 5

Pfiffer Ranches

Pale, R

1,273.80

8/2002

8/1999

217,500

7040

Buyer/Attorney

Expansion/Invest

Agricultural

XX

Harding

Camp Creek

290,000

290,000

227.67

Cash

290,000

Acres

1,273.80

227.67

AUs

2,417.00

Pasture

Livestock

Supp Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities In Area

Terrain Und/Roll

Fences Ave-Fair

Elevation 3150

Stockwater Average

Severances Pipeline/Rd

AU Capacity 120

Water Rights No


Book/Page 59/358

X

X X

See Attached

Cropland A 100.00 437.00

Cropland B 80.00 350.00

Hayland 75.00 328.00

Pasture A 50.00 218.00

Pasture B 40.00 1,273.80 180.00 229,284



Forest Permit

BLM Permit

Other (State) 934.00 AUMs 65.00 60,710

1,273.80 180.00 934.00 65.00 289,994

290,000 289,994

6,935 15,923 43.55 6,935

8,988 290,000 3.10 8,988

Sale adjoins the small town of Camp Creek. Buyer working on grandfather's ranch and this is his first real estate purchase. Sale

includes four (4) sections of State land -- lease cost $1.30/acre per year which is about $2.50/acre below the market rent for deeded lands in the

area. The buyer indicated he paid $100/acre more for the property due to the leases -- however, using a market rate of $180/acre for the deeded

pasture shows a residual of $65/AUM for the State lease. Sold by an attorney via sealed bids.



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is

Land-Mix Analysis Unimproved Database #

Land Use Ratios Acres $/Acre Unit Size Unit Type $/Unit Total Unit Value

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis


Income AnalysisIncome Estimate Basis: Cash Share Owner/Operator

Income Source Unit Stabilized Total Production Cash/Share/Owner Income

Actual Estimated Units Measure Yield Stabilized $/Unit Gross Income Share % Income $

Improvements Improvements Included in Land Rent /mo /yr


Expense Items: Expenses (cont.): Expenses (cont.):

Real Estate Tax $ $ $

Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $

Total Expenses / Stabilized G.I. = Expense Ratio % Total Expenses = $

Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

6 d333 6

Hansen

Jones

7,565.64

01/05

01/97

1,400,000

7040

Buyer

Investment

Agricultural

XX

Harding 2

4 16N 3E

Rediginger

3,200,000

3,200,000

422.96

Cash

3,200,000

Acres

7,565.64

422.96

AUs

5,333.00

Pasture

Ag/Rec

Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Roll/Mtn

Fences Ave/Good

Elevation 4000

Stockwater Gd/Pipeline

Severances Scat Deeded

AU Capacity 600

Water Rights No

Mineral Rts. N/A

Doc: Bk/Pg 64D/296

X

X X

Attached

Cropland A 100.00 600.00

Cropland B 80.00 480.00

Hayland 75.00 650.00 450.00 292,500

Pasture A 50.00 2,500.00 350.00 875,000

Pasture B 40.00 4,415.64 300.00 1,324,692



Forest Permit

BLM Permit

XX State Lease 2,498.00 AUMs 65.00 162,370

7,565.64 329.41 2,498.00 65.00 2,654,562

3,200,000 2,654,562 545,438

X

X

Grazing 4,800.00 AUMs 17.50 84,000 100 84,000

84,000

7,843

4,091

2,520

8,400

Leases 18,000

40,854 84,000 48.64

43,146 3,200,000 1.35

40,854

43,146



Index # Database # Sale #

Improvement Analysis

Item: Impt. #1 Impt. #2 Impt. #3 Impt. #4 Impt. #5 Impt. #6 Impt. #7 Impt. #8 Impt. #9 Impt. #10

Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN

% Physical Depreciation

RCN Remainder After Phys. Depr.

% Functional Obsolescence


% External Obsolescence

Total Impt. Contribution

Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

6 d333 6

House/Ldg

4,075

Sq Ft

g

g

5

45

100.00

407,500

10

366,750

366,750

366,750

90.00

M. Shed

11,200

Sq Ft

g

g

5

35

12.50

140,000

13

121,800

121,800

121,800

10.88

Shop

2,000

Sq Ft

e

e

3

37

17.50

35,000

8

32,200

32,200

32,200

16.10

Barn

2,000

Sq Ft

f

f

40

10

9.00

18,000

80

3,600

3,600

3,600

1.80

Corrals

1

Set

g

g

20

30

27,500.00

27,500

40

16,500

16,500

16,500

16,500.00

Out-Bldgs

1

Set

f

f

45

5

46,000.00

46,000

90

4,600

4,600

4,600

4,600.00

19 19

674,000.0 545,450.0 17.00

Buyer is from Tennessee and purchased as an investment for recreational (hunting) purposes. The sellers purchased the property

in January 1997 for $760,000; then added substantial new buildings and developed wells, pipelines and stock tanks in all pastures. The house is a

lodge-type home with an open design, large stone fireplace, and wood cathedral ceiling; plus an attached two-car garage. There is a new 11,000

square-foot clear-span steel-frame building with a 2,000 square-foot heated shop attached. Costs added since the last sale estimated at $640,000

-- which was added to the prior sale price in order to calculate the increase over time to $1,400,000 (adjusted CEV price in 1997). The deeded

portions are mostly undulating to rolling pastures (no pines) in two or three blocks -- but unit contiguous by virtue of State and Forest permits

(8,120 acres of XX State and forest permits consisting of rolling to rough timbered hills). 5.5 miles of Forest boundary of which 2 miles are

deeded. This sale sets a new high for the area and reflects significant motivation for recreational uses.



Sales Comparison Approach - Land Adjustment for Sale# 1Adjust each sale to the subject's land mix (land adjustment) using unimproved sales. This page allows for a "quantitative land adjustment" only.

Sales Comparison - Sale #1 Land Adjustment Amt. $

Land Use Sale Acres $/Acre Sale Unit Type Sale Units $/Unit Subj. Acres $/Acre Subj. Unit $/Unit Total

Sale Land Contrib. / Eff. Unit Size = Total / Eff. Unit Size =

Sales Comparison Approach - Improvement Adjustment for Sale# 1Compare each set of sale improvements to the subject improvements making judgments regarding utility and condition. Then arrive at an improvement adjustment for each sale on a per acre or per unit basis. These adjustments are shown on the Sales Comparison Grid.Note: Appraiser must manually enter the $/Unit for the Subject Improvements -- either individually or as a lump sum.

Sales Comparison - Sale #1 Improvement Adjustment Amt. $: /

Sale Impt. Utl/Cond. Size X $/Unit Contrib. Value Subject Impt. Utl/Cond. Size X $/Unit Contrib. Value

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

Sale Effective Unit Size: $ Subject Effective Unit Size: $

Total Improvement Value = $ / Total Improvement Value = $ /

Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d333 -25.74

Crop A 600.00 600.00

Crop B 480.00 480.00

Hay/CRP 650 450.00 600.00 450.00 270,000

Pasture A 2,500 350.00 350.00

Pasture B 4,416 300.00 3,900.00 300.00 1,170,000

Irrigated 1,200.00 1,200.00

Subby/Btms/Pines 900.00 900.00

Forest Permit 475.00 100.00 47,500

BLM Permit

Soonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

3,200,000.00 7,565.64 422.96 1,787,500 4,500.00 397.22

d333 -57.04 Acres

House/Ldg g g 4075 90.00 366750

M. Shed g g 11200 10.88 121800

Shop e e 2000 16.10 32200

Barn f f 2000 1.80 3600

Corrals g g 1 16500.00 16500

Out-Bldgs f f 1 4600.00 4600

7565.64 545,450

72.10 Acres

House f f-p 2,000 5.00 10,000

Shed a-g g 2,050 3.50 7,175

Shed a-f f 3,600 1.00 3,600

Hanger a-g g 2,560 7.50 19,200

Mobile Home a f 1,240 15.00 18,600

Bins (4) f f 4,000 0.30 1,200

Corrals g g 2 4,000.00 8,000

4,500.00 67,775

15.06 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

7 d335 7

Ink Pen

Garyingly

6,981.70

09/04

09/00

1,550,000

7040

FCS/Co.

Investment

Ag/Rec

XX 63

Harding 2

1 20N 2E

Harder

2,269,200

2,269,200

325.02

Cash

2,269,200

Acres

6,981.70

325.02

$/AU

5,673.00

Pasture

Ag/Rec

Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Stockwater Ave-Fair

Domestic H2O Well

Fences Fair

Terrain Roll/Mtn

Utilities E/T/Sep

Elevation 3400-4000

AU Capacity 400

Water Rights No

Mineral Rts. None

Doc: Bk/Pg 64/487

X

X

X

X

Attached

Cropland A 100.00 425.00

Cropland B 80.00 375.00

Hayland 75.00 535.00 375.00 200,625

Pasture A 50.00 225.00

Pasture B 40.00 4,300.00 225.00 967,500


Subby/Btms/Pine 150.00 2,146.70 475.00 1,019,683

Forest Permit

BLM Permit 40.00 AUMs 50.00 2,000

Other/State 235.00 AUMs 65.00 15,275

6,981.70 313.36 275.00 62.82 2,205,083

2,269,200 2,205,083 64,117

X

X

Grazing 6,982.00 Acres 10.00 69,820 100 69,820

X

69,820

6,861

915

2,095

6,982

Permit Costs 875

17,728 69,820 25.39

52,092 2,269,200 2.30

17,728

52,092






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

7 d335 7

House

1,800

Sq Ft

a

g

30

20

80.00

144,000

60

57,600

57,600

57,600

32.00

Out-Bldgs

1

Set

f

p

40

10

32,500.00

32,500

80

6,500

6,500

6,500

6,500.00

64 64

176,500.0 64,100.0 3.00

Long-held ranch family sold to buyer from Minnesota that purchased as an investment for hunting. The property is a mixture of

rolling hayland, changing to rolling timber and open rolling pasture land. The improvements consists of a house built in 1982 (not updated) with

a second complete building site -- all out-buildings and corrals have limited utility and most are in poor condition (information held in-file).

There are 880 acres of State lease and 160 acres of BLM in scattered locations which help block the unit -- which contribute to value. There are

two significant in-holdings, i.e., one immediately west of Harder (1,000 acres) and one in the northeastern portion of the ownership (240 acres).

The buyer intends on developing commercial hunting, primarily deer hunting. Access is good and fences are below average. Water is provided by

nine wells, several dams, and a few dugouts. The upper portion -- near the top of the West Red Hills has below average water; thus, the grass

cover is above average in theses areas. The ranch has excellent fall and winter livestock protection which also provides habitat for wildlife (deer

and turkey) with an occasional antelope at the lower elevations. Sale leased at $10.00/acre after sale for three years -- owner reserving hunting.





Land Use Sale Acres $/Acre Sale Unit Type Sale Units $/Unit Subj. Acres $/Acre Subj. Units $/Unit Total





/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d335 -2.80

Crop A 425.00 425.00

Crop B 375.00 375.00

Hay/CRP 535 375.00 600.00 375.00 225,000

Pasture A 225.00 225.00

Pasture B 4,300 225.00 3,900.00 225.00 877,500

Irrigated 1,275.00 1,275.00

Subby/Btms/Pines 2,147 475.00 475.00

Forest Permit 475.00 100.00 47,500

BLM Permit AUMs 40.00 50.00 50.00

Soonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

2,269,200.00 6,981.70 325.02 1,450,000 4,500.00 322.22

d335 5.54 Acres

House a g 1800 32.00 57600

Out-Bldgs f p 1 6500.00 6500

6981.7 64,100

9.18 Acres

House f f-p 2,000 5.00 10,000

Shed a-g g 2,050 3.00 6,150

Shed a-f f 3,600 1.00 3,600

Hanger a-g g 2,560 7.50 19,200

Mobile Home a f 1,240 15.00 18,600

Bins (4) f f 4,000 0.30 1,200

Corrals g g 2 3,750.00 7,500

4,500.00 66,250

14.72 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

8 d330 8

dePaul

Ladone

6,469.38

05/03

03/02

885,000

12

7040

Realtor/County

Expansion

Agriculture

XX 19

Bink

26 13N 9E

Haver

989,500

989,500

152.95

Cash

989,500

Acres

6,469.38

152.95

$/AU

3,958.00

Pasture

Livestock

Ranch

No

Legal Assess Yes

Phys Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Rolling

Fences Average

Elevation 2600-2850

Stockwater Ck/W/D-Good

Severances 3 unit/rd/rvr

AU Capacity 250

Water Rts No

Mineral Rts All Owned

Book/Page 321/192

X

X X

See Attached

Cropland A 100.00 369.00

Cropland B 80.00 295.00

Hayland 75.00 277.00

Pasture A 50.00 184.00

Pasture B 40.00 6,469.38 148.00 957,468


Subby/Bottom 150.00 553.00

Forest Permit

BLM Permit

Other

6,469.38 148.00 957,468

989,500 957,468 32,032

X

X

Unit Rental 6,469.00 Acre 7.50 48,518 100 48,518

X

48,518

6,800

531

1,456

4,852

13,639 48,518 28.11

34,879 989,500 3.52

13,639

34,879






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

8 d330 8

House

780

Sq Ft

f-p

f-p

43

7

75.00

58,500

85

8,775

8,775

8,775

11.25

House

988

Sq Ft

p

p

45

5

65.00

64,220

90

6,422

6,422

6,422

6.50

Shed

7,296

Sq Ft

f-p

f-p

40

10

6.25

45,600

80

9,120

9,120

9,120

1.25

Shed

2,368

Sq Ft

f

f

38

12

7.00

16,576

75

4,144

4,144

4,144

1.75

Shed

920

Sq Ft

f

f

38

12

10.00

9,200

75

2,300

2,300

2,300

2.50

Corrals

1

Set

f

f

38

12

5,000.00

5,000

75

1,250

1,250

1,250

1,250.00

84 84

199,096.0 32,011.0 3.00

This sale is about 30 miles northeast of Haver, or north of Mud Flats and situated in three (3) tracts. 2 tracts containing 720

acres are separated from the main unit by approximately one mile. There are irregular boundaries and two in-holdings within the main unit. Sale

bordered on the east by Williams County on Hay Creek and South Fork of the Soonover River (live water). Rolling grassland that previously sold

in 2002 for $842,516; however, seller spent $42,500 remodeling the houses; thus, the prior price adjusted upward to $885,000 to reflect that

addition and to more accurately show the increase over time.










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d330 86.83

Crop A 369.00 369.00

Crop B 295.00 295.00

Hay/CRP 252 277.00 600.00 277.00 166,200

Pasture A 2,500 184.00 184.00

Pasture B 6,469 148.00 3,900.00 148.00 577,200

Irrigated 1,106.00 1,106.00


Forest Permit AUM 700.00 75.00 475.00 75.00 35,625

BLM Permit

Soonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

989,500.00 6,469.38 152.95 1,079,025 4,500.00 239.78

d330 11.19 Acres

House f-p f-p 780 11.25 8775

House p p 988 6.50 6422

Shed f-p f-p 7296 1.25 9120

Shed f f 2368 1.75 4144

Shed f f 920 2.50 2300

Corrals f f 1 1250.00 1250

6469.38 32,011

4.95 Acres

House f f-p 2,000 7.50 15,000

Shed a-g g 2,050 3.00 6,150

Shed a-f f 3,600 1.25 4,500

Hanger a-g g 2,560 7.50 19,200

Mobile Home a f 1,240 15.00 18,600

Bins (4) f f 4,000 0.30 1,200

Corrals g g 2 4,000.00 8,000

4,500.00 72,650

16.14 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

9 d340 9

Small

Bleeder Ranch

9,434.32

04/03

03/96

895,000

4

7040

Buyer/Seller

Expansion

Agricultural

XX 63

Harding

1 15N 6E

Pie Town

1,745,350

1,745,350

185.00

Cash

1,745,350

Acres

9,434.32

185.00

$/AU

3,173.00

Pasture

Livestock

Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Rolling

Fences Good

Elevation 2750-2950

Stockwater Good

Severances 2 unit/roads

AU Capacity 550

Water Rights No


Book/Page 64/231

X

X X

Attached

Cropland A 100.00 370.00

Cropland B 295.00

Hayland 1,000.00 275.00 275,000

Pasture A 1,200.00 183.00 219,600

Pasture B 7,234.00 145.00 1,048,930

Irrigated Land 1,100.00

Subby/Bottom 550.00

Forest Permit

BLM Permit

Other (State) 733.00 AUMs 60.00 43,980

9,434.00 163.61 733.00 60.00 1,587,510

1,745,350 1,587,510 157,840

X

X

Unit Rental 9,434.00 Acre 9.00 84,906 100 84,906

X

84,906

7,500

1,584

2,518

8,393

State Lease 2,450

22,445 84,906 26.44

62,461 1,745,350 3.58

22,445

62,461






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

9 d340 9

House

2,106

Sq Ft

a

g

25

25

70.00

147,420

50

73,710

73,710

73,710

35.00

Garage

484

Sq Ft

a

g

25

25

20.00

9,680

50

4,840

4,840

4,840

10.00

Shop

1,024

Sq Ft

a

f-p

40

10

12.50

12,800

80

2,560

2,560

2,560

2.50

Bins

15,400

BU

a

g

40

10

1.00

15,400

80

3,080

3,080

3,080

0.20

M. Shed

4,160

Sq Ft

a

g

35

15

10.00

41,600

70

12,480

12,480

12,480

3.00

Shed

2,592

Sq Ft

a

g

25

25

5.50

14,256

50

7,128

7,128

7,128

2.75

Shed

2,160

Sq Ft

a

f

35

15

7.25

15,660

70

4,698

4,698

4,698

2.18

Shed

2,688

Sq Ft

a

g

25

25

7.50

20,160

50

10,080

10,080

10,080

3.75

Shed

1,600

Sq Ft

a

f

40

10

7.00

11,200

80

2,240

2,240

2,240

1.40

Shed

5,120

Sq Ft

a

g

25

25

5.25

26,880

50

13,440

13,440

13,440

2.63

Shed

2,944

Sq Ft

a

g

25

25

5.50

16,192

50

8,096

8,096

8,096

2.75

Corrals

2

Sets

a

g

25

25

15,500.00

31,000

50

15,500

15,500

15,500

7,750.00

56 56

362,248.0 157,852.0 9.00

Sale 20 miles southeast of Buffalo. Buyer purchased adjacent ranch circa 1980 and expanding -- owner is rancher/feedlot

operator from Colorado. Two-tract sale (1 mile apart controlled by buyer) with above average improvements for the region. About 2000 acres

farmed at one time; then enrolled in CRP for 10 years; and now are either grazed or used for hay. 280 acres of Crested Wheatgrass and Alfalfa;

530 acres Pubescent Wheatgrass; 365 acres Wheatgrass; 500 acres (half wheat and half fallow) and 200 acres in oats plus 200 acres in

Alfalfa/Crested for 2002. Approximately 3,100 acres leased of which 2,200 acres are State and "block" the operation. Seasonal creeks, dams,

wells, and pipeline.










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d340 51.92

Crop A 370.00 370.00

Crop B 295.00 295.00

Hay/CRP 1,000 275.00 600.00 275.00 165,000

Pasture A 1,200 183.00 183.00

Pasture B 7,234 145.00 3,900.00 145.00 565,500

Irrigated 1,100.00 1,100.00



BLM Permit

Soonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

1,745,350.00 9,434.32 185.00 1,066,125 4,500.00 236.92

d340 0.35 Acres

House a g 2106 35.00 73710

Garage a g 484 10.00 4840

Shop a f-p 1024 2.50 2560

Bins a g 15400 0.20 3080

M. Shed a g 4160 3.00 12480

Shed a g 2592 2.75 7128

Shed a f 2160 2.18 4698

Shed a g 2688 3.75 10080

Shed a f 1600 1.40 2240

Shed a g 5120 2.63 13440

Shed a g 2944 2.75 8096

Corrals a g 2 7750.00 15500

9434.32 157,852

16.73 Acres

House f f-p 2,000 7.50 15,000

Shed a-g g 2,050 2.75 5,638

Shed a-f f 3,600 2.00 7,200

Hanger a-g g 2,560 7.50 19,200

Mobile Home a f 1,240 15.00 18,600

Bins (4) f f 4,000 0.30 1,200

Corrals g g 2 5,000.00 10,000

4,500.00 76,838

17.08 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

10 d329 10

Coyote Draw

Johnson

6,359.00

12/02

12/93

508,000

7040

Buyer

1031-Exchange

Agriculture

XX 63

Harding

20 T20N R9E

Rediginger

1,300,000

1,300,000

204.43

Cash

1,300,000

Acres

6,359.00

204.43

$/AU

3,250.00

Pasture

Livestock

Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Roll/Mtn

Fences Ave

Elevation 3250-3600

Stockwater Good

Severances Ownership

AU Capacity 400

Water Rights Yes


Book//778

X

X X

See attached

Cropland A 100.00 400.00

Cropland B 80.00 320.00

Hayland 75.00 252.00 300.00 75,600

Pasture A 50.00 2,500.00 200.00 500,000

Pasture B 40.00 3,607.00 160.00 577,120

Irrg Land 300.00 1,200.00

Irr Subby 150.00 600.00

FS Permit 700.00 AUM 75.00 52,500

6,359.00 181.27 700.00 75.00 1,205,220

1,300,000 1,205,220 94,780

X

X

Unit Rental 6,359.00 Acre 8.50 54,052 100 54,052

X

54,052

6,998

1,416

1,622

5,405

15,441 54,052 28.57

38,611 1,300,000 2.97

15,441

38,611






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

10 d329 10

House

1,820

Sq Ft

G

G

30

20

65.00

118,300

60

47,320

47,320

47,320

26.00

House

2,128

Sq Ft

F

F

40

10

60.00

127,680

80

25,536

25,536

25,536

12.00

Shop

1,200

Sq Ft

F

F

15

5

8.00

9,600

75

2,400

2,400

2,400

2.00

Pole Barn

1,344

Sq Ft

G

G

10

10

6.00

8,064

50

4,032

4,032

4,032

3.00

Pole Barn

2,880

Sq Ft

G

F

15

5

6.00

17,280

75

4,320

4,320

4,320

1.50

Corrals

1

Set

F

F

35

15

37,000.00

37,000

70

11,100

11,100

11,100

11,100.00

70 70

317,924.0 94,708.0 7.00

Sale 5-8 miles west of Rediginger. The buyer indicated the ranch has above average water with dams, wells, and pipelines. There

is a limited amount of hayland. The Forest permit is typically used in the fall and winter and was a factor to the buyer. The Forest permit (Box

Springs) is timbered and has scenic appeal. The northern portion of the ranch has superior grass and was inventoried as "Pasture A". The

remainder (south portion) has limited natural protection and inferior water (Pasture B). Grass condition below average due to drought and

over-grazing with buffalo. The BLM, County, and XX State leases total an additional 1,676 acres. The improvements consist of two homes and

several pole barns. The second home will be utilized as a labor house (later sold and removed). The improvements are more than adequate for a

ranch this size. The corrals are constructed from pipe and sucker rod and were built for buffalo.










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d329 48.82

Crop A 400.00 400.00

Crop B 320.00 320.00

Hay/CRP 252 300.00 600.00 300.00 180,000

Pasture A 2,500 200.00 200.00

Pasture B 3,607 160.00 3,900.00 160.00 624,000

Irrigated 1,200.00 1,200.00



BLM Permit

Soonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

1,300,000.00 6,359.00 204.43 1,139,625 4,500.00 253.25

d329 1.85 Acres

House G G 1820 26.00 47320

House F F 2128 12.00 25536

Shop F F 1200 2.00 2400

Pole Barn G G 1344 3.00 4032

Pole Barn G F 2880 1.50 4320

Corrals F F 1 11100.00 11100

6359 94,708

14.89 Acres

House f f-p 2,000 7.50 15,000

Shed a-g g 2,050 3.00 6,150

Shed a-f f 3,600 2.00 7,200

Hanger a-g g 2,560 7.50 19,200

Mobile Home a f 1,240 15.00 18,600

Bins (4) f f 4,000 0.30 1,200

Corrals g g 2 4,000.00 8,000

4,500.00 75,350

16.74 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

11 d336 11

Karen, R.

L-Bar

8,513.00

11/02

11/95

830,000

7040

Auction

Expansion

Agriculture

XX 7

Bink

10 T13N R7E

Mud Flats

1,620,000

1,620,000

190.30

Cash

1,620,000

Acres

8,513.00

190.30

$/AU

3,600.00

Pasture

Livestock

Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Rolling

Fences Ave

Elevation 2550-2900

Stockwater Fair

Severances Rvr/Roads/Elec

AU Capacity 450

Water Rights No


Book/Page 112/347

X

X

See attached

Cropland A 100.00 400.00

Cropland B 80.00 320.00

Hayland 75.00 413.00 300.00 123,900

Pasture A 50.00 3,500.00 200.00 700,000

Pasture B 40.00 4,600.00 150.00 690,000

Irrg Land 300.00 1,200.00

Irr Subby 150.00 600.00

FS Permit

BLM Permit

Other/State Lease 900.00 AUMs 60.00 54,000

8,513.00 177.83 900.00 60.00 1,567,900

1,620,000 1,567,900 52,100

X

X

Unit Rental 8,513.00 Acre 7.50 63,848 100 63,848

X

63,848

14,099

736

1,915

6,385

23,135 63,848 36.23

40,713 1,620,000 2.51

23,135

40,713






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

11 d336 11

House

1,460

Sq Ft

F

F

35

15

65.00

94,900

70

28,470

28,470

28,470

19.50

Log Cabin

368

Sq Ft

G

G

10

10

40.00

14,720

50

7,360

7,360

7,360

20.00

Garage-3

792

Sq Ft

G

F

15

5

15.00

11,880

75

2,970

2,970

2,970

3.75

Garage-2

576

Sq Ft

G

F

15

5

15.00

8,640

75

2,160

2,160

2,160

3.75

Beef Barn

1,440

Sq Ft

F

F

15

5

8.00

11,520

75

2,880

2,880

2,880

2.00

Mach Shed

3,680

Sq Ft

G

P

17

3

7.50

27,600

85

4,140

4,140

4,140

1.13

Shop

2,160

Sq Ft

F

F

17

3

7.50

16,200

85

2,430

2,430

2,430

1.13

Others

1

Set

F

F

40

10

8,500.00

8,500

80

1,700

1,700

1,700

1,700.00

73 73

193,960.0 52,110.0 3.00

The ranch adjoins buyer's ranch and has been leasing the ranch the last several years at roughly $7/acre (slightly below market).

There are numerous improvements; however, only a portion of the buildings contribute value. Most of the structures inventoried are in fair to

poor condition. The majority of the hayland is along the Soonover River and creek bottoms with some upland hay ground. Most of the hayland

needs to be re-seeded. A portion of the pasture, along the Soonover River and Cabin Creek has been inventoried as "Pasture A" -- or pasture with

superior carrying capacity by comparison to the remainder. There are about 3,000 acres of State lease.










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d336 56.92

Crop A 400.00 400.00Crop B 320.00 320.00Hay/CRP 413 300.00 600.00 300.00 180,000Pasture A 3,500 200.00 200.00Pasture B 4,600 150.00 3,900.00 150.00 585,000Irrigated 1,200.00 1,200.00Subby/Btms/Pines 600.00 600.00Forest Permit 475.00 100.00 47,500BLM PermitSoonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

1,620,000.00 8,513.00 190.30 1,112,500 4,500.00 247.22

d336 10.45 Acres

House F F 1460 19.50 28470Log Cabin G G 368 20.00 7360Garage-3 G F 792 3.75 2970Garage-2 G F 576 3.75 2160Beef Barn F F 1440 2.00 2880Mach Shed G P 3680 1.13 4140Shop F F 2160 1.13 2430Others F F 1 1700.00 1700

8513 52,1106.12 Acres

House f f-p 2,000 7.50 15,000Shed a-g g 2,050 3.50 7,175Shed a-f f 3,600 1.50 5,400Hanger a-g g 2,560 7.50 19,200Mobile Home a f 1,240 15.00 18,600Bins (4) f f 4,000 0.30 1,200Corrals g g 2 4,000.00 8,000

4,500.00 74,57516.57 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

12 d328 12

Applby Ranch

Klaopp

6,667.00

03/02

7040

Buyer

1031-Exchange

Agriculture

XX 3

Bink

26 12N 6E

Haver

920,000

920,000

137.99

WD

920,000

Acres

6,667.00

137.99

$/AU

3,538.00

Pasture

Livestock

Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Rolling

Fences Ave

Elevation 3000

Stockwater Ave

Severances 3 units/Rvr/Rds

AU Capacity 260

Water Rts None


Book & Page 302/789

X

X

see attached deed

Cropland A 100.00

Cropland B 80.00

Hayland 75.00 171.00 250.00 42,750

Pasture A 50.00

Pasture B 40.00 6,496.00 129.00 837,984

Irrg Land 300.00

Irr. Subby 150.00

FS Permit

BLM Permit

6,667.00 132.10 880,734

920,000 880,734 39,266

X

X

Unit Rental 6,667.00 Acres 6.50 43,336 100 43,336

43,336

8,359

588

1,300

4,334

14,581 43,336 33.65

28,755 920,000 3.13

14,581

28,755






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

12 d328 12

House

1,148

Sq Ft

G

F

41

14

72.50

83,230

75

20,808

20,808

20,808

18.13

House

988

Sq Ft

G

F

50

10

60.00

59,280

83

10,078

10,078

10,078

10.20

Mach Shed

2,392

Sq Ft

G

F

15

5

8.50

20,332

75

5,083

5,083

5,083

2.13

Corrals,etc

1

Set

F

F

10

10

6,500.00

6,500

50

3,250

3,250

3,250

3,250.00

77 77

169,342.0 39,219.0 4.00

Ranch in northwest Bink County in three tracts (1 mile apart) with South Soonover River running through the southern portion.

Older set of improvements. 171 acres of hayland, but several years since its been replanted (production about 1.25 tons/acre). Buyer sold a

ranch and completed a 1031-exchange. Water from dams and river is only average. Sale fenced into two large pastures and three small 'traps'

adjacent to the headquarters. All minerals owned transferred, but not a factor in this locale.










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d328 84.37

Crop A 367.00 367.00Crop B 293.00 293.00Hay/CRP 171 250.00 600.00 250.00 150,000Pasture A 183.00 183.00Pasture B 6,496 129.00 3,900.00 129.00 503,100Irrigated 1,100.00 1,100.00Subby/Btms/Pines 550.00 550.00Forest Permit 475.00 100.00 47,500BLM PermitSoonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

920,000.00 6,667.00 137.99 1,000,600 4,500.00 222.36

d328 0.24 Acres

House G F 1148 18.13 20808House G F 988 10.20 10078Mach Shed G F 2392 2.13 5083Corrals,etc F F 1 3250.00 3250M. Shed a g 4,160 3.00 12,480Shed a g 2,592 2.75 7,128Shed a f 2,160 2.17 4,698Shed a g 2,688 3.75 10,080Shed a f 1,600 1.40 2,240Shed a g 5,120 2.63 13,440Shed a g 2,944 2.75 8,096Corrals a g 2 7,500.00 15,000

6667 112,38116.86 Acres


4,500.00 76,93817.10 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

13 d331 13

Donnee

Heckell

3,880.00

11/01

7040

Buyer

1031-Exchange

Agriculture

XX 63

Harding

9 T16N R5E

Rediginger

900,000

100,000

800,000

206.19

Cash

800,000

Acres

3,880.00

206.19

$/AU

2,388.00

Pasture

Livestock

Supp Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Rolling

Fences Average

Elevation 3250-3600

Stockwater Ave

Severances Roads/Sm Elec

AU Capacity 335

Water Rights No


Book/Page 62/478

X

X

X

See attached

Cropland A 100.00 365.00

Cropland B 80.00 292.00

Hayland 75.00 800.00 274.00 219,200

Pasture A 50.00 800.00 183.00 146,400

Pasture B 40.00 2,280.00 146.00 332,880



Forest Permit 445.00 AUM 75.00 33,375

BLM Permit

Other

3,880.00 180.02 445.00 75.00 731,855

800,000 731,855 68,145

X

X

Unit Lease 3,880.00 Acre 9.00 34,920 100 34,920

X

34,920

4,000

1,375

1,051

3,502

Forest Lease 600

10,528 34,920 30.15

24,392 800,000 3.05

10,528

24,392






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

13 d331 13

House

1,312

Sq Ft

G

G

30

20

75.00

98,400

60

39,360

39,360

39,360

30.00

Pole Shed

2,592

Sq Ft

A

G

30

20

5.00

12,960

60

5,184

5,184

5,184

2.00

Shop

3,000

Sq Ft

A

G

25

25

11.50

34,500

50

17,250

17,250

17,250

5.75

Pole Barn

2,560

Sq Ft

F

F

40

10

5.00

12,800

80

2,560

2,560

2,560

1.00

Pole Barn

2,304

Sq Ft

F

F

40

10

5.00

11,520

80

2,304

2,304

2,304

1.00

Corrals

1

Set

F

F

30

20

4,000.00

4,000

60

1,600

1,600

1,600

1,600.00

61 61

174,180.0 68,258.0 9.00

Sale located west of Rediginger about 7 miles. $100,000 in livestock, equipment, and hay transferred with sale and deducted

from total price. A sizable Forest permit adjoins the ranch on its northeastern corner. The improvements include a remodeled home with

walk-out basement, a shop and several pole sheds. The other outbuildings do not contribute value. Also, there are 320 acres of State lease and 40

acres of BLM within the unit that do not contribute to value due to size and lease cost (no leasehold advantage to State leases). The buyers moved

a double-wide mobile home on-site after purchase. Sale leased to area operator for two years prior to sale at $9.00/acre -- considered market

rent. Buyers sold a property in State YY and relocated (1031-exchange).










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d331 31.46

Crop A 365.00 365.00Crop B 292.00 292.00Hay/CRP 800 274.00 600.00 274.00 164,400Pasture A 800 183.00 183.00Pasture B 2,280 146.00 3,900.00 146.00 569,400Irrigated 1,095.00 1,095.00Subby/Btms/Pines 548.00 548.00Forest Permit AUM 445.00 75.00 475.00 75.00 35,625BLM PermitSoonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

800,000.00 3,880.00 206.19 1,069,425 4,500.00 237.65

d331 -3.13 Acres

House G G 1312 30.00 39360Pole Shed A G 2592 2.00 5184Shop A G 3000 5.75 17250Pole Barn F F 2560 1.00 2560Pole Barn F F 2304 1.00 2304Corrals F F 1 1600.00 1600Shop F F 2,160 1.13 2,430Others F F 1 2,450.00 2,450

3880 73,13818.85 Acres


4,500.00 70,75015.72 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

14 d326 14

Thom

Smith

5,571.53

03/00

03/94

410,000

7040

Realtor

Investment

Agriculture

XX 63

Harding

2 T16N R5E

Pie Town

724,000

724,000

129.95

Cash

724,000

Acres

5,571.53

129.95

$/AU

2,069.00

Pasture

Livestock

Ranch

No

Legal Access Yes

Phys Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Und/Roll

Fences Ave

Elevation 3200

Stockwater Ave

Severances Road

AU Capacity 350

Water Rts None


Book/Page 61/507

X

X X

See attached

Cropland A 100.00 265.00

Cropland B 80.00 212.00

Hayland 75.00 850.00 199.00 169,150

Pasture A 50.00 133.00

Pasture B 40.00 4,721.53 106.00 500,482

Irrigated Land 300.00 795.00


Forest Lease

BLM Lease

Other Lease

5,571.53 120.19 669,632

724,000 669,632 54,368

X

X

Unit Rental 5,571.53 Acre 7.00 39,001 100 39,001

X

39,001

5,800

586

1,156

3,853

11,395 39,001 29.22

27,606 724,000 3.81

11,395

27,606






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

14 d326 14

House

1,936

Sq Ft

G

F

40

10

80.00

154,880

80

30,976

30,976

30,976

16.00

House

1,100

Sq Ft

F

F

45

5

70.00

77,000

90

7,700

7,700

7,700

7.00

Barn

8,544

Sq Ft

A

P

18

2

5.00

42,720

90

4,272

4,272

4,272

0.50

Shop

2,048

Sq Ft

A

F

15

5

8.00

16,384

75

4,096

4,096

4,096

2.00

Barn

1,280

Sq Ft

A

F

15

5

5.00

6,400

75

1,600

1,600

1,600

1.25

Steel Corral

1

Unit

G

G

2

48

6,000.00

6,000

4

5,760

5,760

5,760

5,760.00

82 82

303,384.0 54,404.0 8.00

Sale south of Buffalo and 2 miles east of Highway 200. The improvements are generally in fair condition with a new set of steel

corrals. The second house will be used for hunters. The hayland was previously in CRP and fenced inside pastures (poor management). Water is

provided by dams and wells. The ranch has limited natural winter protection. Approximately 1,800 acres of State lease was transferred to the

buyer; but it does not contribute measurably to value since the lessee pays a base lease plus taxes, as if it were private land. Therefore, there is no

leasehold advantage in the State lease.










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d326 65.67

Crop A 265.00 265.00Crop B 212.00 212.00Hay/CRP 850 199.00 600.00 199.00 119,400Pasture A 133.00 133.00Pasture B 4,722 106.00 3,900.00 106.00 413,400Irrigated 795.00 795.00Subby/Btms/Pines 398.00 398.00Forest Permit 475.00 100.00 47,500BLM PermitSoonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

724,000.00 5,571.53 129.95 880,300 4,500.00 195.62

d326 5.74 Acres

House G F 1936 16.00 30976House F F 1100 7.00 7700Barn A P 8544 0.50 4272Shop A F 2048 2.00 4096Barn A F 1280 1.25 1600Steel Corral G G 1 5760.00 5760

5571.53 54,4049.76 Acres


4,500.00 69,75015.50 Acres



File No #

















Legal Description:

Sa

le A

na

lys

is



% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

% Ac. X $ = $

Totals Ac. X $ = $

La

nd

Mix

An

aly

sis









Insurance $ $ $

Maintenance $ $ $

Management $ $ $


Inc

om

e A

na

lys

is


Page of

Demo

2005-151

15 d334 15

Hector, L.

Bort

4,640.00

10/98

10/87

175,000

7040

FCS

Investment

Agriculture

XX 63

Harding

Haver

485,000

485,000

104.53

Cash

485,000

Acres

4,640.00

104.53

$/AU

2,108.00

Pasture

Livestock

Ranch

Yes

Legal Access Yes

Phys. Access Gravel

Utilities E/T/W/Sep

Terrain Roll/Mtn

Fences Ave/Good

Elevation 3550-3950

Stockwater Ave/Good

Severances Road/Pipeline

AU Capacity 230

Water Rights No

Mineral Rts. None

Book/Page 57/166

X

X X

See attached

Cropland A 100.00 200.00

Cropland B 80.00 160.00

Hayland 75.00 360.00 150.00 54,000

Pasture A 50.00 1,500.00 100.00 150,000

Pasture B 40.00 2,780.00 80.00 222,400

Irrigated Land 300.00 600.00



BLM Permit

Other

4,640.00 91.90 122.00 60.00 433,720

485,000 433,720 51,280

X

X

Grazing 4,640.00 Acre 5.00 23,200 100 23,200

23,200

3,460

658

696

2,320

Forest Lease 235

7,369 23,200 31.76

15,831 485,000 3.26

7,369

15,831






Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Contribution $/Unit


Type

Size

Unit

Utility

Condition

Age

Remaining Life

RCN/Unit

RCN







Contribution $/Unit



Imp

rov

em

en

t A

na

lys

is

Comments:

Co

mm

en

ts

Page of

Demo

2005-151

15 d334 15

House

1,640

sf

g

g

33

17

70.00

114,800

65

40,180

40,180

40,180

24.50

Shop

960

sf

g

g

40

10

8.00

7,680

80

1,536

1,536

1,536

1.60

Shed

1,680

sf

f

f

40

10

5.00

8,400

80

1,680

1,680

1,680

1.00

Barn

1,600

sf

f

f

40

10

10.00

16,000

80

3,200

3,200

3,200

2.00

Barn

2,210

sf

f

f

40

10

5.50

12,155

80

2,431

2,431

2,431

1.10

Barn

1,200

sf

f

f

40

10

5.00

6,000

80

1,200

1,200

1,200

1.00

Corrals

1

set

f

f

40

10

5,000.00

5,000

80

1,000

1,000

1,000

1,000.00

70 70

170,035.0 51,227.0 11.00

Northern portion of sale is timbered on top of the Red Hills. Buildings in transitional area between timber and lower pastures.

Good gravel road to buildings and through property east/west. House is modular (original house burned in a fire in the 1980's). Four pastures

plus four smaller hay fields. Northeast portion is steeper, pine covered hills. Four springs on ranch and it has above average stockwater. Gas

wells/pipeline on property, but no mineral rights.










/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$

/ X $ =$ / X $ =$



Additional Comments

Page of

Demo

2005-151

d334 57.80

Crop A 200.00 200.00Crop B 160.00 160.00Hay/CRP 360 150.00 600.00 150.00 90,000Pasture A 1,500 100.00 100.00Pasture B 2,780 80.00 3,900.00 80.00 312,000Irrigated 600.00 600.00Subby/Btms/Pines 300.00 300.00Forest Permit AUMs 122.00 60.00 475.00 60.00 28,500BLM PermitSoonover Coop 200.00 1,500.00 300,000

485,000.00 4,640.00 104.53 730,500 4,500.00 162.33

d334 4.24 Acres

House g g 1640 24.50 40180Shop g g 960 1.60 1536Shed f f 1680 1.00 1680Barn f f 1600 2.00 3200Barn f f 2210 1.10 2431Barn f f 1200 1.00 1200Corrals f f 1 1000.00 1000

4640 51,22711.04 Acres


4,500.00 68,75015.28 Acres

real estate appraisal reportan analysis of elements affecting prices. the data was analyzed by...

Documents