Loading...
2017-00395DECISION 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 2017-00395: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by the current owner (Mr. Michael Ansbro). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a single family home built in 2006, and located in Golden Gate Estates. The street address is 580 22nd Avenue NE. The subject’s 1-story home with an adjusted building size of 2,543 SF situated upon a site of 1.14 acres. One of the major issues in this report relates to the impact of a ‘borrow pit’ (for fill to increase the building elevation) dug in the subject’s back yard when it was originally built. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the two traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $301,408. The PAO also provided the subject’s building card information, impact fee support, aerial photo, location map, building sketch, land sales/improved sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid, and improved sales photos/sketches. It is noted that the PAO did not provide Marshall Valuation support for his Cost Approach inputs, yet those cost inputs do not appear unreasonable. All of the PAO’s evidence submitted is relevant to this hearing and class of property. The PAO notes the subject recently sold on August 4, 2016 for $355,000. Thus, the contested just value of $301,408 equates to 84.9% of this recent purchase price. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $23,500/acre, or $26,790. The land value estimate was based upon 5 land sales closed during 2016. Based upon the land data presented, the PAO’s land value estimate appears reasonable. The PAO includes significant impact fees of $27,142), site improvements of $20,000, and a depreciated building value of $280,489. The PAO does NOT provide back-up improvement cost information from Marshall Valuation, but the PAO applies 10% physical depreciation. The PAO concludes a final Cost Approach value indication of $354,421, which is consistent with the recent purchase price in 2016 of $355,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 4 improved sales during 2016, plus the subject’s recent sale in August 2016. The PAO provides photo & sketch back-up sheets in evidence for each of the improved sales. The fully adjusted price range of the 5 sale comps range from $318,055-$375,814. The PAO reconciles at $140/adjusted SF, or $356,000, which is just $1,000 greater than the August 2016 purchase price. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness via the 2 relevant approaches. At the hearing, I also accepted a copy of the subject’s prior listing sheet, listing history, and seller disclosure sheet from the PAO. There was no indication of the borrow pit in any of those documents. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing and did submit evidence into the record. The PET submitted a boundary survey (dated 10/5/2017) that does show the boundaries of a large borrow pit in the back yard that (per PET) is 9’ deep. The pit was dug for its fill to be used to raise the floor elevation of the house’s slab. However, the subject lot is narrow and now there is insufficient room within the side setbacks to get heavy equipment in to fill the pit without encroaching upon (or driving on) one of the adjacent neighbors. The reason he was not aware of the issue is that a) it was not disclosed by the seller, b) not disclosed by the listing agent (or MLS brochure), c) not disclosed within the existing “as built” survey from 2006, and not noted by the fee appraiser for the loan he obtained to buy the house. The PET has an email in the record explaining costs they have paid to clear ($2,200) so far, costs of 60-70 loads of fill ($10,800-$12,600), plus a variety of other associated costs. The PET also provided a bid from D.A.C. Enterprises for $52,895 related to fill and associated costs to fill the pit, assuming an adjacent neighbor would allow access. The PET explained they just moved to Naples from out of state and they were unaware of local conditions or practices related to fill issues in Golden Gate Estates. However, it does appear a variety of parties had the obligation and/or professional responsibility to disclose (or discover) any defects/conditions that could be relevant to the property. The surveyor (of the 2006 survey), seller, listing broker, and even the appraiser could potentially all have liability in this situation, but the outcome of any litigation is beyond the scope of this hearing. At the hearing, I also noted the surveyor (on the updated 2017 survey) also failed to locate the drain field for the septic tank, which is normally done by professional land surveyors. The PET argues that now this is a marketability problem for him, as he would now have to disclose this defect and he could not command a price as high as he just paid. The pit partially fills with water and becomes a mosquito nuisance as well. In testimony, the PAO reps note that borrow pits are not necessarily uncommon at all in the Golden Gate Estates. That being said, none of the PAO’s improved sales (or even lot sales) are known to have this same issue to be able to isolate and reduction in market value associated with this type of condition. RULING: All of the data presented by both parties appears to be relevant. The PET did overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. This is because the testimony and evidence presented was convincing to conclude the PET/ owner would not have paid the price of $355,000 had he known of the existence of the borrow pit and the associated costs to fill/correct its impact upon the overall value. Per testimony from both the PET and the PAO, the condition was also not evident from aerial photographs, due to how overgrown the area is. While the PET stated he would not have bought the subject at if he had known of the issue, the fact remains that he does now own it and some degree of relief appears warranted in this case. The best piece of evidence presented to cure the problem is the $52,895 estimate. Thus, I have deducted this amount from the PAO’s assessment resulting in a revised figure of $248,513 (i.e. $301,408 - $52,895 = $248,513). The PAO notes that at some future date when the defect is fixed, the future assessment may likely be raised to a normal market level. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2017-00395: Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by property appraiser at the hearing [Section 194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of $248,513. [Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision.