Laserfiche WebLink
but asserts that the actual rent paid is market rent. However, <br />Petitioner offered no evidence of market rents and consequently, <br />we rely on Mr. Patchin's analysis. <br />Petitioner argues that Mr. Patchin's addition of reimbursed <br />expenses results in overstating income. We addressed this <br />concern in Lenzmeier and accept Mr. Patchin's methodology. <br />We look at Mr. Patchin's allowance for deferred maintenance <br />of $5,000 and find, based on Petitioner's testimony, that it cost <br />$15,000 to repair the roof and that an additional amount should <br />be deducted to more realistically reflect the needed maintenance. <br />Giving weight to both the sales comparison and income approach <br />but providing a larger allowance for deferred maintenance, we <br />f ind a value of $185,000 as of January 2, 1993. <br />The Zimmerman Property <br />Petitioner purchased the Zimmerman property in 1981. The <br />property consists of a single-story commercial building with a <br />partial basement. Petitioner operates a laundromat in the <br />building and rents other space for storage. Petitioner again <br />based his opinion of value on an adaptation of Mr. Patchin's <br />income approach. <br />We have reviewed Mr. Patchin's appraisal and his testimony. <br />Petitioner questioned Mr. Patchin's selection of comparable sales <br />and portions of the income approach but did not present credible, <br />contradictory evidence. Again, we rely on the training and <br />experience of Mr. Patchin. <br />• <br />6 <br />