- 50 -
methodology persuasive. The algorithms employed in the formulas
were discernible and result in adjustments between the comparable
and subject properties that appear appropriate.
Mr. Reyman also made another set of adjustments to the
comparables for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 to account for "conditions of
sale" and location. We are also generally persuaded of the
appropriateness of those adjustments, with one exception. In the
case of one comparable, Mr. Reyman opined that the sale occurred
as a result of a public auction where two bidders, both desiring
the property because of its proximity to their other holdings,
drove the sale price up. In Mr. Reyman's view, this factor
necessitated a $150 per acre downward adjustment in the sales
price of the comparable. Respondent objects,33 and we agree, in
that we are not persuaded that such an adjustment is justified.
As this comparable was averaged with five others, elimination of
this $150 downward adjustment raises the indicated per acre value
for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 by $25 ($150/6).
We find one other element of Mr. Reyman's methodology
troublesome. Whereas with respect to Parcels 2, 3, and 4, Mr.
Reyman took the average of the adjusted per acre values of the
six comparables in reaching an indicated value for each subject
33 While respondent contends that the downward adjustment
made was $200 per acre, we are satisfied upon review of Mr.
Reyman's report that $50 of the adjustment was attributable to
the comparable's location rather than the bidders'
characteristics.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011