564784 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pagel. of 2 Clint Luke - R64784 From: Michael White To: Clint Luke Date: 11/29/2019 10:41 AM Subject: R64784 Good morning Clint, I have been thinking about this account quite a bit. It is ugly and hard to find the "right" handle on since there are no comparable sales readily available on anything land reasonably similarly situated. So hold on and I will explain my thoughts on it, or you can skip down to the bottom (*****)to my suggested answer. First I looked around of the sale of oddly shaped small(ish) pieces of land. That was not very fruitful. I then looked about for some supporting evidence of a consistent perimeter to square foot ratio value relationship. Not anything I would want to hang my hat on there either. (Though could be interesting for a later study.) I looked at the property itself, at the contour (topo) lines, and did not see enough of an issue there (when compared to other near by accounts)that seemed to warrant topo adjustments for unusual topography. You mentioned that there was drainage issues on the east side of the property, if I recall correctly. Difficult for me to be sure of by pictometry, but I think I may have identified the area that may be taking place in. I thought that it might be a driveway or something at first, but based on what you mentioned, I now wonder if it is a drainage control spillway. (Eastern side of account near bend of Win Stanley Dr SE.) If that is the case, then I think that is something we could work with. With that in mind I then looked to the amount of"usable" land, or the western "arm" of the property, where the mobile home resides. I then looked at the account the owner mentioned that was nearby(R40902) that had recently sold. That account sold for$32,000. We have it listed as .23 acres and a water adjustment of +$50,000. I measured the "usable" land on that account, as half of it is in the river, and came up with approximately .15 acres. If we used the "usable" acreage and calculated a straight line to 1 acre,we would have a per acre value of approximately $213,000. This does not directly represent the value of the lot, however, but it does give us a reference point with which we can use this approach. If we were to measure the western "arm" of R64784, we come up with roughly half an acre. So if we used the $213,000 per acres as the starting point, then multiply that times .5 (acres)for the "usable" acres of R64784, we then come up with $106,500. If we then removed the amount that we would add for a water adjustment, we would come up with $56,500. I was not fond of this approach though as it blends a few things that seems may not be rightly reflected in the sale. I moved on to the total acres of R40902 (.23) and the sales price of $32,000, creating a per acre value of roughly $138,800. When we do this we come fairly close to the value that we are carrying on the land minus the water adjustment. So this showed a bit of promise. If we used $138.800 per acre and multiplies it against the 1.14 acres of R64784, we then come up with $158,232. If we were to assume that the sale of R40902 had the water adjustment (which we carry as $50,000) reflected in that sale price, as safe assumption I would think. Taking out our water adjustment amount of$50,000,we have $108,232 for the 1.14 acres. If we said that only .5 acres were effectively "usable",that would drop the amount to $47,470. Then I had to take a moment and step back to look a the numerical mathematics that were taking place here and to imagine how this could be rather frustrating to try to repeat going forward. There is a lot of subjectivity here as far as "what is usable" and at what point do we use or ignore some of the processes we file:///C:/Users/cluke/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 DEOF5FOGWM2M-ASR110013... 1/21/2020