Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,}~' 'q <br />DATED: May 1, 1995 <br />w~`, <br /> a c~ Oifica of the l~.iaesota ±as Cap-' d^es <br />BY THE COURT, ;;~:~:br certify Lt±at the atta~hc-d irs`:.-ttznea` <br /> ;:; E talc- ->?-? cc_^_sci copy o: the cri~:nal <br /> CD:tit Cie PTO. -1~~Cp2 ~/`~%- /~~ <br /> C^un`y (tt ~-iginxl £te is ~,// <br />k¢~t by Dlniri:: cosh aciiag / <br />i <br /> ~~, <br />t <br />cc ~;letX f Ta:: st) ~ J <br /> <br /> DepaQ~ Coa=t Adxiata>zator Deu <br />~` <br />~. <br />Dorothy McClung, Judge <br />MINNESO A TAX COURT <br />MEMORANDIIM <br />This matter was tried in conjunction with two 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 Cvril G. Lenzmeier v. County of <br />Sherburne, File No. C4-94-628 (Minn. Tax Ct. May 1, 1995). In <br />Johnson, we found that Mr. McComb's testimony was not barred by <br />Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6. His testimony was not appraisal <br />testimony but rather information regarding the growth and <br />accompanying changes in retail trade in the Elk River and <br />Zimmerman areas. <br />As in Johnson and Lenzmeier, Petitioner chose not to present <br /> <br />an expert's report or opinion of value of the subject properties. <br />Petitioner based his opinion of the values of the subject <br />properties on an income approach he adapted from the income <br />approach developed by Respondent's expert. Petitioner owns and <br />manages dry-cleaners and laundromats. He is not an appraiser nor <br />a real estate expert. <br />~~ bF b~j~ <br />,tpt~ t~ Ar,O <br />y ~~ ~'a <br />~~ <br />~~~~~~ <br />4 <br />