2017-00251DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
VALUE PETITION
County
The actions below were taken on your petition.
These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # Parcel ID
Petitioner name
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent
other, explain:
Property
address
Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part
Value
Lines 1 and 4 must be completed
Value from
TRIM Notice
Before Board Action
Value presented by property appraiser
Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C.
After Board
Action
1.Just value, required
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none
4. Taxable value,* required
*All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.)
Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed.
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
Signature, special magistrate Print name Date
Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at
Address
If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be
considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at
Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board
Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision
Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties
DR-485V
R. 01/ 17
Rule 12D-16.0 02
F.A.C.
Eff. 01/17
Findings of Fact for Petition 2017-00251:
ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented
by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) did
NOT attend the hearing in person or on the phone, but was represented by Mr. Baxter
Trabold with Duff & Phelps. The PET & PAO both timely submitted evidence into the
record for consideration.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is the Scripps ‘Naples Daily News’
property, which was built in 2009. It is located at 1100 Immokalee Road in Naples. The
subject has an adjusted (multi-story) building size of 201,375 SF situated upon a site of
19.85 acres.
PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to
value to support the contested just value of $21,230,931. The PAO also provided the
subject’s building card information, zoning map, color aerial, location map, building
sketch, along with the subject’s prior deed when it sold for $23,075,000 back in 2006.
Thus, the current 2017 assessment is still less than the subject’s prior sale.
In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $10/SF ($8,646,660), plus
$783,530 of impact fees. The land value estimate was based upon the 11 land indicators
(all sales), 5 of which closed during 2016. A land sales map is provided. It appears the
PAO is reasonable in his land value estimate. The PAO does provide back-up
improvement cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee
calculations. The PAO applies 9% physical depreciation. The PAO concludes a final
Cost Approach value indication of $31,790,000. I give greatest weight to this approach,
as the subject is a rather specialized property type/design.
In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 3 improved sales from various
locations in SW Florida that closed between 2014-16. Sale #1 in Naples sold for $86.53/
SF, while Sale #2 in Naples sold for $235.98/SF. Sale #3 (FedEx in Lee County) is the
closest in building size and it is also similar in FAR (floor-to-area ratio), and it sold for
$98.29/SF of building area. The PAO provides CoStar sales sheet details for all 3 sales in
his evidence. The PAO concludes the subject’s value at $140/SF from the 3 sales, or
$28.193M.
In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $27,008,000, based upon a $16/
SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 25% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 8.5% applied to the
NOI of $2,295,675. The PAO does provide various exhibits showing market data, rates,
and rents. Some of that data is based upon confidential sources provided by various
Collier taxpayers.
The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by providing a good Cost
Approach. The PAO’s Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach are both
supportive of the Cost Approach, which is given most weight. The PAO also does
include some of the subject’s historical building permit information dating back to the
2007-09 time frame exceeding $30M.
The Petitioner (PET) did NOT attend the hearing, but did submit evidence for
consideration. The PET did provide a letter of authorization. The PET did check the box
on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted a subject photo with
Collier County’s assessment information breakdown. The PET requests a value of
$20,510,000.
In the PET’s Cost Approach, the PET incorrectly uses the PAO’s administrative land
allocated value of $4,867,930. This is inappropriate to use in these VAB hearings. Land
values should be obtained from the market, and not from the PAO’s administrative
assessment breakdowns. Furthermore, in the Cost Approach, the PET fails to account for
entrepreneurial profit, fails to account for impact fees (which are significant), fails to
consider some of the PAO’s timely land sale indicators from the subject’s vicinity, and
fails to consider some soft costs/taxes during construction. I give NO WEIGHT to the
PET’s Cost Approach, given the land component was not estimated from market
information. This is a significant error in a case where land values for large parcels are
available, as proven by the PAO’s land support.
RULING: I find all of the evidence submitted by the PAO to be relevant & credible. I
find some of the PET’s evidence to be relevant with regard to cost information; however,
[with regard to the PET’s land value estimate] it is not credible to use the PAO’s
administrative land assessment breakdown within the PET’s Cost Approach. Land value
should be estimated from market evidence. The PET’s Cost Approach should have also
included entrepreneurial profit, soft costs, taxes during construction, and impact fees.
These major failures in the PET’s Cost Approach undermines the PET’s one and only
approach to value. Therefore, the PET fails to overcome the PAO’s presumption of
correctness established at the hearing. The PAO does present a good and credible Cost
Approach, which is a very good way to value this type of specialized property on a fee
simple basis. The PAO’s two remaining approaches are supportive, but for a fairly
specialized property type, they have greater subjectivity. Based upon the weight and
preponderance of evidence, it is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld.
Conclusions of Law for Petition 2017-00251:
Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their
evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser
to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a
presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology
complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal
practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of
correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance
of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with
Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since
the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must
overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted
evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just
valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is
arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices
generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same
county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's
established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not
represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on
appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the
Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the
appraisal should be upheld.