Laserfiche WebLink
~..~ <br />The Elk River Property <br />Petitioner purchased the Elk River property in 1986. He <br />leases space for a laundromat and dry-cleaning plant to a company <br />he also owns. The rest of the building consists of eight <br />apartments, several overlooking the Mississippi River. <br />Petitioner describes the apartments as barely adequate but admits <br />he has very few vacancies. He spent $15,000 to repair the roof <br />in 1993. The pavement in the parking areas needs repair but he <br />had no estimate of the potential cost. <br />Respondent hired the appraisal f irm of Peter J. Patchin and <br />Associates to perform a review appraisal. At trial Mr. Patchin <br />testified that he considered all three approaches to value but <br />relied most heavily on a sales comparison approach. He gave no <br />weight to a cost approach because of the age and condition of the <br />building. We agree and will not rely on a cost approach. <br />Mr. Patchin found sales in Elk River, Princeton, Shakopee, <br />Excelsior and Anoka and adjusted them to make them comparable to <br />the subject property. Petitioner, on cross-examination, <br />questioned the selection of comparables but offered no direct <br />testimony contradicting Mr. Patchin's choices. Mr. Patchin found <br />an indicated value of $206,000 and deducted $5,000 in deferred <br />maintenance. We rely on Mr. Patchin's experience and analysis <br />and agree with his indicated value. <br />In calculating his income approach, Mr. Patchin determined <br />that the dry-cleaning business pays less than a market rent. <br />Petitioner owns both the property and the dry-cleaning business <br />5 <br />