My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-28-15 Agenda, Packet & Committee Meeting Notice
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Committee Meeting Notices
>
2015
>
09-28-15 Agenda, Packet & Committee Meeting Notice
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2015 2:20:30 PM
Creation date
9/24/2015 2:18:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Counci - Date
9/28/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
454
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH(cont.) <br /> indicated value of$150,000,which when subtracted from the sales price would give a value <br /> to the building of$40,000. Dividing this by the 3,0585 sq. ft. contained in the building <br /> would give an indicated sales price of$11.16 per sq. ft.of land and building merged. <br /> ANALYSIS <br /> Comparable No. 1 had an indicated value of$5.58 of land and building merged. This sale <br /> was an old bowling alley, which put greatest emphasis on the bowling alley itself, as <br /> opposed to being just an added feature which might be called a tavern. It also should be <br /> noted that this was a closed bowling alley, which would have an influence on the sales <br /> price. <br /> Comparable No. 2 was a former fraternal club that also had a bowling alley and had many <br /> similarities to the subject in this respect. The building was substantially inferior to the <br /> subject property as well as such things as a parking lot, etc., and even though this was a <br /> fraternal club,I tended to give this the least influence. <br /> Comparable No. 3 was a tavern which was sold in a"turn-key" operation and required the <br /> abstracting of extra items such as the liquor license, extra house, etc. from the sales price, <br /> which can be argued that the abstraction was too high or too low, therefore affecting the <br /> indicated value of the land and building merged of the building itself. It did have the <br /> advantage of being located relatively close to the subject property,and under the same basic <br /> economic influences. It should be recognized that this was the sale of a going business,and <br /> such things as retaining the same customer base, goodwill, etc. are virtually impossible to <br /> put a dollar value on. Nevertheless, in the lack of other more definitive sales,I did tend to - <br /> set the upper limits of value for the subject property. <br /> In arriving at an Indicated Value in the Direct Sales Comparison Approach, I have given <br /> entire emphasis to these three sales, and attempted to weigh each as to their importance. <br /> After considering the aspects that I have discussed above, I have concluded that an <br /> Indicated Value of the subject property based on the Comparables would be $7.50 per sq. <br /> ft. of land and building merged. <br /> The subject building contains 32,518 sq.ft. therefore: <br /> 32,518 sq. ft.x$7.50= $243,885 <br /> SAY <br /> $244,000.00 <br /> INDICATED VALUE $244,000.00 <br /> 31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.