Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />~a <br />DATED: May 1, 1995 <br />~Y; <br />BY THE COURT, <br /> ,..~,,, Ot., of the <br />M,tnesata c ez C~~~-~ <br />' <br /> `; _ `i?c *-hat the attachet3 ir~i~- - <br />_ <br /> "~'- ~ :correct copy of the e -~_r <br /> . <br />"~ ~] :a -ecord t ~ ~ cffic <br />... i[e ~r~. <br /> <br /> ~~iainci Cau:i actin ~' <br /> ~ ~~ <br /> I)opeery Coure Admintsbal~ r,..~ <br /> <br />Doro by McClung, Judg <br />MINNESOTA TAX COURT <br />MEMORANDUM <br />This matter was tried in conjunction with three other <br />• <br />petitions filed in Sherburne County and the testimony of James <br />McComb for the Petitioners was applicable to all four properties. <br />See Steven C. Johnson v. County of Sherburne, File No. C6-94-629 <br />(Minn. Tax Ct. May 1, 1995); and Allan E. Nadeau v. County of <br />Sherburne, File Nos. C6-94-632 and C8-94-633 (Minn. Tax Ct. May <br />1 , 1995). In the Johnson decision, we found that Mr. McComb's <br />testimony was not barred by Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6. His <br />testimony was not appraisal testimony but rather information <br />regarding the growth and accompanying changes in retail trade in <br />the Elk River area. <br />As in Johnson and Nadeau, Petitioner chose not to present an <br /> <br />expert's report or opinion of value of the subject property. <br />Giles Lenzmeier was allowed to testify and present his opinion of <br />value based on his adaptation of Respondent's expert's income <br />approach. Giles Lenzmeier is neither an appraiser nor a real <br />estate expert. <br />C3F ~~~~ <br />°~ ~~~ <br />4 <br />