Laserfiche WebLink
t three approaches to value but testified that the cost approach in <br />this case was least reliable because of the age and condition of <br />the building. We agree and do not rely on the cost approach. <br />Mr. Patchin relied most heavily on his sales comparison approach <br />and used sales in Elk River, Princeton, White Bear Lake, <br />Stillwater and Anoka which he adjusted for age, condition, <br />location, time of sale and number of floors. He averaged the <br />value per square foot of all seven sales and the value per square <br />foot of the most comparable sale in Elk River and found a value <br />per square foot for the subject property of $22.50. As we look <br />at the comparable sales, we are struck by the size difference. <br />Even though Mr. Patchin adjusted for size, we conclude that <br />greater weight should be given to the Elk River sale. We also <br />. give weight to the very recent sale of the property adjacent to <br />the subject property and conclude that the subject property had a <br />value of $20.00 per square foot. <br />Petitioner questioned Mr. Patchin's choice of comparable <br />sales but we rely on Mr. Patchin's expertise because we found his <br />testimony credible. <br />In calculating his income approach, Mr. Patchin looked at <br />the market to determine what a reasonable rent might be if the <br />subject were offered for rent. He gathered information regarding <br />leases of retail properties in comparable communities and <br />calculated a market rent of $42,962. His pro forma operating <br />statement allowed a 7% vacancy and collection loss rate, a 50 <br />management fee and a reserve for replacement. He capitalized the <br />7 <br />