Laserfiche WebLink
i Lenzmeier has sufficient interest in the property and has <br />sufficient knowledge to testify in this matter. <br />Since Petitioner elected not to present an expert appraisal <br />but chose instead to have Giles Lenzmeier .adapt Mr. Patchin's <br />income methodology, we review Mr. Patchin's appraisal first. <br />Mr. Patchin considered but did not rely on a cost approach. <br />Because of the age and condition of the subject property, we <br />agree and do not rely on the cost approach. Mr. Patchin relied <br />most heavily on his sales comparison approach using sales in Elk <br />River, Stillwater, White Bear Lake, Chaska and Anoka which he <br />adjusted for age, condition, location, time of sale and number of <br />floors. He concluded that the sales comparison approach <br />indicated a value of $350,000 from which he deducted $30,000 for <br />• deferred maintenance. <br />Petitioner questioned Mr. Patchin's choice of comparable <br />sales but we rely on Mr. Patchin's expertise because we find his <br />testimony credible. <br />In calculating his income approach, Mr. Patchin found that <br />the rents actually being paid by the tenants of the subject <br />property were below market rents. After surveying the market, he <br />found that a market rent for the retail space of $6.00 per sq. <br />ft. and a market rent for the off ice space of $7.50 per sq. ft. <br />The retail tenant in the subject property pays a significant <br />share of the property expenses but the office tenants pay none. <br />Mr. Patchin calculated the reimbursed expenses and added them to <br />• gross income in order to convert the net rentals to gross <br />6 <br />