4.5. HRSR 09-08-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Supplemental Addendum Ii:! N;: 5132175- t BMWlg__ .Erin -Cunningham PrWp AdftS 1420 51h St NW _ .- C4 Elk RNer CakelY Sftftrr>o Stat• MN Ib {Ads 55330 I-Nde ANK4 The Smk of Eik Rtvar quality, age, room configuration, GLA, basement design, and garage size, but ultimately given the least consideration due to its larger lot, inferior condition, and larger size. Listing one is superior in overall build quality with adjustment necessary. Listing two is superior in overall condition with adjustment necessary. These sales are a goad overall representation of homes that are most similar to the subject from the area. Comparables represent the best market alternatives available for the subject property. Comparable sales adjusted values range between $226,500 and $231,5pp. Most weight was given to comparable sale #1 as it is deemed the best market alternative to the subject property, however, all comparable sales used are given consideration in determining value in the Sales Comparison Approach, It is my opinion the value based on this information is $227,506. All comparables were visually inspected by the appraiser during a drive-hy inspection and photographed. Photographs of comparables used are included in this report. A prior original photo was used for comparable one due to people present at time of concurrent drive-by inspection 11. Comments on the Cost Approach. The Cost Approach is performed in this report for the intended use of providing additional support in determining market value in underwritingthe Ioan for mortgage financ}ng purposes. At the request of the client. development of the cost approach has been completed by the appraiser as an analysis to support their opinion of the property's market value. Use of this data, in whole or in part, for any other purposes, such as determining an insurance value, is not anticipated by the appraiser, nor is it an intended use. Site contributory value is determined through lot sales comparison. The replacement cost new was estimated using Marshall & Swift Cost Handbook and local builders. Most weight was given to data ol}tained from local builders as increasing costs of construction in Minnesota render cost handbook values less reliable. 12- Comments In the Income Approach: The I ncome Approach to value was not deemed necessary to achieve credible results, and therefore, not completed - 13. Comments on Final Reconciliation: As noted, the income Approach was not appropriate in this appraisal. The Cost Approach is most useful when an improvement is new or has minimal accrued depreciation inherent to the improvements. As age/depreciation increase, the reliability of this approach to value decreases. The most weight was given to the Sales Comparison Approach as it is predicated on direct market evidence. The data available in the appraisap was entirety appropriate to the assignment and resulted in a reliable market value range from which to reconcile to the final market value conclusion. It then produces the most reliable indication of mark tvaiue. 14. Lender/Client Statements; 5prutua Nim! Ro rP.)NpJWffl Oak Sued o1wimm Stale CG0k9W I 40454919 Wt MN Or Stria kkmw 0 Sols swan UK a* siw — So Cerdiitailm r Or Stabe, Ue. ase • Farm TADD2 - TpTAL' app 3" sA*-m by a la mDk. ux - 1-BDO-W WE SW Stale