09/14/2020 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i f - All 3 approaches- were considered but file income and sales compa68oiX RwQach were not used. The . Appraiser relied on the cost approach. The sales data collected was used 4 dtwlopiug the cost-"loch model. The coimp8ialiles used were in relatively good condition. Ad of 1(/a do�vnroc+artl of list pricing ric' were made to. appliances andlawn mowers. Other ad}usi =ts v* made to freight costs wbam the comparables did not advertise this cost. «,M*etn*+�, major household appliance TheI,g/P)sl data covers household institdtional furniture , garden °t manufacturing, computer & Peripheral OTI-ent �tifsturing- .Iaana manufacturing. These charts do not indicate�the date obtained but iodic to-"Ail. indexes are subject to revision four months ager original publication A chart of the soinparabi-data for fiuniture; apPS'aa s, lawn mowers, electronics and computers was P?'esented- photos or support comparables mentioned in the report was presented to fire Special None of the backup p . rt). t . The tenser stated that the supporting &lagistate at this hearing (Exhibit B of the Apgr 'sisal )repo) AISP . . data is located in the Appraiser's work file. , discussed the stores bt#siness model, leasing pno9CSs, assets. The raiser also determination of rental condition tot to mit B ofJ�AppraiW presented an ddressed Report reflects how each of the 8 Criteria factors wZs consider The Agent believes-that the PA did not consider all%rms of obsolescence. The percent good in DOR and IlMMguidelines are derived. from Marshall f& Swl#t (M&S), wych dpes not meet the $ Criteri faciars. Elis' appraisal model does cover all forms of obsolescence. The AMaiser *d 1,200 data points to support lstables. The Agent presented multiple pages from the M&S manual dated -November, 2014 discussing obsolescence and how it is considered in their tables. The Agent's requested values are as follows: 0 Petition No.40 $413,451 a PetitionNo.M $352,3591 Petition NOW $444,057 i PetitionNo:ft $537,981 Petition No.M $407,7481 Petition NoW $651;903 Petition MAW $245;0821 Petition No. (® $790,265 The $25,000 exemption will be applied to each of the values. Rebuttal The PA questioned the Agent and the, Appraiser about the removal. of the upcharge and how that was developed, The Agent stated that there is a slight markup for the distrib;center. The Appraiser made an adjustment based 9n the original cost reported on the return The PA not receive any economic data and det=rained that would tot apply. In reviewing the data points, there wise only 10 furniture sales, with the rest marked unsold, The PA also questioned the condition codes usedfby the Appraiser, the source of the negative price column and the 10% adjustment.=& to electronics. $ased on all of the adjustments being made by the Appraiser, the PA questions the reliability of the va"t� developed. In the Appraiser's report, the furniture is the only asset type witli a condition code column 710 IAA's tables are consistent. i -59-