- 29 -
Table 3
Comparable Land Development
Expert Sales or Cost Conclusion
Atkinson (P) $2,009,855 $1,497,000 $1,750,000
Hulberg (R) 2,365,000 2,210,000 2,300,000
Atkinson and Hulberg agree that the highest and best use of
the Quito Property is for residential subdivision development,
that the Quito Property should be treated as being potentially
divisible into eight lots, and that any such development would
require removal of the existing house on the Quito Property.
Hulberg “considered both approaches equally * * * and will
reconcile toward the middle of the indicated range.” Atkinson
concluded that “The Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches are very
close in final value”; he, too, struck a final valuation midway
between the values of his two approaches. Hulberg’s comparable
sales approach value was only 7 percent higher than his land
development approach value. Atkinson’s comparable sales approach
value was 34 percent higher than his cost approach value. See
supra table 3. We do not understand the standards of judgment
that prompted Atkinson to conclude that a 34-percent differential
is “very close”.
Comparable Sales Analysis
For his comparable sales analysis, Atkinson selected five
sales of other properties, sold between June 1989 and December
1990, and presented a matrix showing sale-by-sale, item-by-item
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011