real estate valuation expert. Mr. Curley determined that the subject property’s highest and best use was its “existing commercial use” considering the functional, and “physical, economic constraints on adaptive reuse of the subject property.” With that highest and best use in mind, the original appraisal report valued the subject property using both sales-comparison and income-capitalization approaches, but did not develop a cost approach because of the nature and age of the subject building. Ultimately, Mr. Curley relied only on the income-capitalization methodology contained in his amendments to the appraisal report to value the subject property for the fiscal years at issue. To develop values for the subject property an capitalization technique, Mr. Curley first ascertained what he deemed to be appropriate rents. He considered: (1) a survey that he prepared of purportedly comparable Worcester properties, with rents ranging from $2.80 to $3.95 per square foot on a triple net basis and offerings ranging from $3.00 to $3.50 per square foot on a triple net basis; (2) the actual gross rents at the subject property, which averaged $2.00 per square foot; and (3) the $3.77 and $3.99 per square foot used by the assessor on his income valuation cards, which Mr. Curley had determined represented the blended rates for the fiscal years at issue. Based on these factors, Mr. Curley applied his own blended rate of $3.00 per square foot on a gross basis, which resulted in a potential gross
real estate valuation expert. Mr. Curley determined that the subject property’s highest and best use was its “existing commercial use” considering the “physical, functional, and economic constraints on adaptive reuse of the subject property.” With that highest and best use in mind, the original appraisal report valued the subject property using both sales-comparison and income-capitalization approaches, but did not develop a cost approach because of the nature and age of the subject building. Ultimately, Mr. Curley relied only on the income-capitalization methodology contained in his amendments to the appraisal report to value the subject property for the fiscal years at issue. To develop values for the subject property an technique, Mr. Curley first ascertained what he deemed to be appropriate rents. He considered: (1) a survey that he prepared of purportedly comparable Worcester properties, with rents ranging from $2.80 to $3.95 per square foot on a triple net basis and offerings ranging from $3.00 to $3.50 per square foot on a triple net basis; (2) the actual gross rents at the subject property, which averaged $2.00 per square foot; and (3) the $3.77 and $3.99 per square foot used by the assessor on his income valuation cards, which Mr. Curley had determined represented the blended rates for the fiscal years at issue. Based on these factors, Mr. Curley applied his own blended rate of $3.00 per square foot on a gross basis, which resulted in a potential gross capitalization
17p706.docx