- 19 -
Victorville property frontage, at the time of its sale. He
stated that it had also received “widening [of] interior streets,
signals, walks, curbs, gutters, etc.,” prior to its sale. He
applied a downward adjustment of 35 percent to the Jess Ranch
sale price.5
Mr. Perdue stated that the Jess Ranch property was left as
raw land at its sale date, and needed the same improvements that
the Victorville property needed. However, he admitted that the
Jess Ranch property did have some curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and
a traffic signal, and some of the road was done. He made a
negative adjustment of 2 percent for offsite improvements.
Neither expert provided a clear explanation of the amounts
of their final adjustments for offsite improvements. Mr.
Thompson explained that he believed that the Jess Ranch property
required 25 percent less improvement than the Victorville
property. Mr. Perdue claimed that he based his adjustment on a
conversation he had with the seller of the Jess Ranch property.
From this conversation, he speculated that the only improvements
that had been made were to service a Target store that was
adjacent to, but not actually a part of, the Jess Ranch property.
The Jess Ranch development plan allocated 27.34 acres, or 25.6
5Mr. Thompson split utilities out from offsite improvements.
He made a negative 25-percent adjustment for offsite
improvements, and a negative 10-percent adjustment for utilities.
Because we believe the term “offsite improvements” sufficiently
encompasses utilities, we do not separate the two.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011