DOCKET NO.: 05-00346.001-C-3
13 of 21
used the manual to estimate the subject had 10% depreciation. He
did not make any deduction for functional obsolescence even
though approximately 16% of the building was not used as retail
With respect to the comparable rentals the appraiser stated that
they are big box stores with some attached to malls and some
aren't attached to malls. He indicated that the rentals are not
all competing properties to each other and stated some operate
complementary to one another. Gorman also agreed that he used
rentals located in Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Minnesota, Colorado, Indiana,
Arizona, Florida, Washington, New Jersey, California, and New
Mexico. He acknowledged that he used one rental adjacent to the
subject identified as a Sears that had a rental of $3.45 per
square foot and a lease date of 2003. Gorman was also questioned
about whether the rental comparables that contained from 19,000
to 24,000 square feet are properly classified as big box stores.
The witness was also questioned about rentals that were listed
twice and indicated those were mistakes. The witness did not
know if double counting these stores would change his regression
analysis. Gorman agreed that a major influencing factor of this
type of property is attachment to a regional mall. Gorman did
not know how many attached anchor department stores were included
in his comparable rentals.
Gorman agreed that his comparable sale number 1 was not attached
to a regional mall. The appraiser also agreed his comparable
sale number 2 is a freestanding store not connected to a regional
mall. Gorman understood that sale number 2 was built to suit
Kohl's, Kohl's leased the property, and somebody sold the
building with the lease in place. Gorman agreed that sale number
3 that occurred in 1998 and is dated. He indicated this sale was
an allocation, in a vibrant retail location and the transaction
was a sales-leaseback. Gorman acknowledged that sale 4 was in a
mall that was "the pits" located across the street from sale 3.
Gorman also agreed that sale 5 occurred in 1998 and was less than
half the size of the subject. Gorman further agreed that all his
comparable sales are from the Chicago metropolitan area. The
appraiser was of the opinion his sales comparison approach wasn't
as reliable as the other two approaches.
Based on this evidence and testimony the intervening taxing
district requested the subject's assessment be increased to
reflect a market value of $10,750,000. No other witnesses were
called on behalf of the intervenor.
The appellant called as its rebuttal witness real estate
appraiser Joseph Ryan to discuss his review of the Gorman
appraisal and the valuation evidence submitted by the board of
review. The intervenor objected to Ryan giving testimony as a
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.