The URL can be used to link to this page

VAB Agenda 01_14_2019 Item # 6 Special Magistrate Recommendations for Review (Complete)■ DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00018 Parcel ID 64625004207 Petitioner name SNYDER, ROBERT Property The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address 2843 WILD ORCHID CT NAPLES, FL 34119 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 976,214.00 976,214.00 976,214.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 976,214.00 976,214.00 976,214.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 976,214.00 976,214.00 976,214.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [ll Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axic:a D 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 2018-00018 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00018: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00018: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Robert Bruce Synder. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $976,214. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 2843 Wild Orchid Court, Naples. As part of PAO' s evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO' s report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided testimony which included a discussion on the April 2018 purchase of the home for $730,000 and provided an appraisal completed on 08/30/2018. The 2018 purchase and 2018 appraisal are not relevant evidence for a market value dated 01/01/2018. The petitioner provided no market evidence from 2017 to support a decrease in the market value where the POA evidence was supportive of market value as of 01/01/2018. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), 2018-00018 Page 2 of 4 F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to 2018-00018 Page 3 of 4 be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does not overcome the PAO' s value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00018: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00121: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $976,214 is presumed correct. 2018-00018 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. DR-485XC R. 01/17 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00033 Parcel ID 00203520002 Petitioner name MICHAELS. HAGEN Property 14785 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address □ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34119 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,147,051.00 1,147,051.00 1,147,051.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,147,051.00 1,147,051.00 1,147,051.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none o.oo o.oo o.oo 4. Taxable value,* required 1,147,051.00 1,147,051.00 1,147,051.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reason for Petition D Homestead D Widow/er D Blind D Totally and permanently disabled veteran D Low-income senior D Disabled D Disabled veteran D Use classification, specify D Parent/grandparent assessment reduction D Deployed military 0 Use exemption, specify Educational Institution D Transfer of homestead assessment difference D Qualifying improvement D Chani:ie of ownership or control D Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/18/2018 Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Date 11/21/2018 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at [!] AM D PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2018 D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Siqnature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00033 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact: Petition 33 is a challenge to the denial of an exemption for an educational institution operated on property owned by the Hernandez Family LLC and located at 14785 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida. PAO Ex. 1, p.5. Petitioner is Nicaea Academy of SW Florida, Inc. and is represented by Attorney Michael Hagen. Neither Petitioner nor its attorney were present for the hearing but indicated in advance that they would not appear and wanted their evidence considered. The Petitioner's evidence package was admitted without objection as P. Composite Ex. 1, consisting of25 pages. Although this hearing was scheduled for 1 :00, the PAO agreed to have the petition heard at the conclusion of Petitions 616 and 617 and the hearing commenced at 9:55 a.m. The Property Appraiser's Office ("PAO") was represented by Anabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions and Customer Services Departments, Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions and Attorney J. Christopher Woolsey. The PAO's evidence was admitted as PAO Composite Ex. 1, consisting of 36 pages. Petitioner is an exempt 501 ( c )(3) non-profit organization. P's Ex. 1 (State of Florida Consumer Certificate of Exemption, IRS letter of exempt status); PAO Ex. 1, pp. 18-25. Petitioner is accredited by the Accrediting Commission International as an educational institution. P. Ex.1. Although Petitioner represented through its attorney that it enjoyed Gold Seal status and qualified for the tax exemption, the Gold Seal credentials presented were for Nicaea Academy, Inc., not Petitioner. Nicaea Academy is recognized by the State of Florida as a Gold Seal Quality child care provider and received its accreditation on March 1, 2018. P. Ex. 1 (DCF letter of status); PAO Ex. 1, p.29. Nicaea Academy is an active, Florida for-profit corporation. PAO Ex. 1, p. 33-34. The PAO, through its attorney, requested clarification from Attorney Hagen as to which entity was operating the day care center. PAO Ex. 1, p.32. No response was provided. Petitioner leases the subject property from the Hernandez Family LLC. PAO Ex. 1, p. 6) Hernandez Family, LLC., is an active, registered Florida limited liability company, organized for the purposes of sale, ownership and operation of real estate, investment in tangible and intangible personal property and engaging in any activity or business authorized by law. PAO Ex. 1, p. 9-11, 14. There is no evidence that the LLC enjoys any not-for-profit, or otherwise exempt, status. Petitioner applied on February 26, 2018 for an exemption for the entire property on grounds that the property is being used by an exempt Gold Seal institution. PAO Ex. 1, p. 26. A Notice of Disapproval was issued by the PAO on April 27, 2018. PAO Ex. 1, p.30. This denial was valid under s. 196.193, Fla. Stat. Conclusions of Law: Section 196.198 states that "educational institutions within this state and their property used by them or by any other exempt entity or educational institution exclusively for educational purposes are exempt from taxation." The statute goes on to say that "property used exclusively for educational purposes shall be deemed owned by an 2018-00033 Page 2 of 3 educational institution if the entity owning 100 percent of the educational institution is owned by the identical persons who own the property, or if the entity owning 100 percent of the educational institution and the entity owning the property are owned by the identical natural persons. Land, buildings and other improvements to real property used exclusively for educational purposes shall be deemed owned by an educational institution if the entity owning 100 percent of the land is a nonprofit entity and the land is used, under a ground lease or other contractual arrangement, by an educational institution that owns the buildings and other improvements to the real property, is a nonprofit entity under s. 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and provides education limited to students in prekindergarten through grade 8." It is clear from the statute that the educational institution must own either the land or the buildings for which the exemption is claimed. Here there was no evidence that Petitioner owned anything, or that Petitioner and the property owner, Hernandez Family LLC, were owned by the same natural persons. The portions of the Lease provided to the Special Magistrate do not indicate that the lessee had any right or intention to erect structures or make improvements to the property. Rather the first recital in the Lease specially includes all "improvements and fixtures" to the real property as the leased premises, and Paragraph 2 of the Lease states that Tenant shall occupy and use the property for the purpose of operating a private school. PAO, Ex. I, p. 6. Consequently, there is no unity of ownership and use as required by Florida law. Even if one were to assume that Petitioner owned the school building itself, the land is owned by Hernandez Family LLC and would not meet the statutory requirements that the landowner be non-profit. As this fact alone is a sufficient basis for denying the exemption, there is no need to consider whether Petitioner qualifies as an educational institution. Therefore the Special Magistrate need not consider or resolve the discrepancies between the Petitioner/lessee and the accredited Gold Seal provider, Nicaea Academy, Inc., or decide whether the certification on March 1, 2018 is sufficient for a January 1 determination of exempt status. Petitioner had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of its application was wrong insofar as it qualified for the educational exemption under s. 196.198, Fla. Stat. The evidence provided by both sides was credible, although the relevance of the accreditation of another distinct entity provided by Petitioner was subject to challenge. As the PAO presented its own evidence pertaining to Nicaea Academy and failed to object to the admission of Petitioner's evidence on this point, all evidence related to this entity was accepted. The greater weight of the credible and relevant evidence showed that Petitioner did not own the property or the buildings and improvements thereon and that there was no common ownership of the landowner, Hernandez Family LLC., and the lessee, Nicaea Academy of SW Florida, Inc. The overall weight of the evidence was insufficient to meet Petitioner's burden of proof, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2018-00033 Page 3 of 3 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00087 Parcel ID 57939280009 Petitioner name ABELARDE, MAYRA, GERMAN LEON Property address 721 TIGERTAIL CT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 465,886.00 465,886.00 465,886.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 286,670.00 286,670.00 286,670.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 286,670.00 286,670.00 286,670.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/03/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00087 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00087: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Jenny Blaje, & Ms. Maryanne Greger. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. & Mrs. Abelarde. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a I-story single family home built in 1982, yet (due to renovations) the PAO gives it an effective date of 8 years (i.e. year 20 IO construction). The street address is 721 Tigertail Court on Marco Island. The subject has a living area of 1,734 SF, and an adjusted building size of 2,115 SF situated upon a site 0.25 acres. The subject's interior lot is not on the water. PRIOR SALE OF THE SUBJECT: The subject recently sold (after the assessment date) on February 26, 2018 for $400,000. This was the Petitioner's purchase of an REO, given the prior transfer was a 2015 certificate of title awarded to Triminea Capital. Triminea specializes in renovating properties and flipping them for profits, according to the PAO. Per the PAO's comments, the subject was listed on the assessment date for $519,000 & it had been on the market for approximately a year. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted two traditional approaches (Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach) to value to support the contested just value of $465,886. The PAO also provided the subject's plat map, aerial photo, location map, ground level photos, building sketch, improved sales map, land sales map, land sale grid, improved sales grids (4 total sales), MLS listing history of the subject, the subject's most recent MLS brochure, impact fee calculations, & back-up photos/sketches for the various improved sales. It is noted that the PAO did not provide Marshall Valuation support for his Cost Approach inputs. All of the PAO's evidence submitted is relevant to this hearing and class of property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $3,000/front feet X I 00 FF X 0.88 depth factor, or $264,000. That land value is based upon the lot sale next door to the subject for $265,000, as well as 4 additional land 'residual' indicators during 2017. The PAO also considers site improvements of$0 (zero), and impact fees of $27,194, and a depreciated building value of $241,486. The PAO does NOT provide back-up improvement cost information from Marshall Valuation. The PAO concludes a final Cost Approach value indication of $532,676, which is supportive of the PAO's just value assessment of $465,886. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 4 improved sales from 2017. The sales are located within a 3-block radius of the subject. Sales #1 & #2 have more similar lot FR indicators, yet Sale # 1 is also closer in adjusted building area. Sales #3 & #4 are located on smaller lots, resulting in much lower fully adjusted price indicators. The PAO concludes $248/SF from the sales, or $525,000 via the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness via the valuation approaches presented. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing and did submit evidence into the record. The PET submitted a copy of their appraisal dated 2/12/2018 for $435,000, while the just value being contested is $465,886. That appraisal was used for the PET's financing. One of the problems with the appraisal is that the contract and the subsequent appraisal were well AFTER the assessment date for use in a 2018-00087 Page 2 of 3 2018 assessment; however, [ as Mr. Staruch indicated in testimony] it may be possible for the PET to use that same appraisal in a 2019 V AB hearing, if necessary. The fee appraisal has other flaws and issues. It estimates the subject's land value at $215,000 from 2 transactions far from the subject, while ignoring the lot sale adjacent to the subject for $265,000. All 5 improved sales used in the fee appraisal are quite distant from the subject, and the 3 sales within 3 blocks of the subject (used by the PAO) are all ignored. Based upon those issues, I do not consider the fee appraisal report to be 'credible' RULING: The PET's recent (1/5/2018) contract & purchase price are not timely for consideration at this hearing, as both are well AFTER the 1/1/2018 assessment date. The fee appraisal report presented by the PET is not credible, given it overlooks significant market data extremely close to the subject. This subject property does appear to suffer from some physical defect issues, which appear already reflected in the PAO's assessment, as well as in the consideration ultimately paid by the PET. It is worthy to note that the PET is benefits substantially in 2018 property tax savings from the seller's prior homestead exemption & SOH (Save Our Homes) protection. The PET failed to overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness for the 2018 assessment. The PET's evidence & sales price appears better suited for the 2019 assessment; however, that fee appraisal report still has credibility issues. The PAO's 2018 assessment appears reasonable and supported by the weight of evidence presented at this hearing. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00087: 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. 2018-00087 Page 3 of 3 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final O 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00106 Parcel ID 11032600001 Petitioner name MOORE, MICHAEL G, & YOSHIMI SUMITOfJ Property 870 10THSTN The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record O taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 D other, explain: Decision Summary O Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition O Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 412,293.00 412,293.00 320,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 387,318.00 387,318.00 295,025.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 337,318.00 337,318.00 245,025.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2018 Date 11/16/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi.;a 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00106 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00106: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00106: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Michael Moore. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $412,293. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria and accepted appraisal practices and established the presumption of correctness. The PET, when providing evidence which included sales data for the area in 2017 and stated the fact that this property was purchased in an arm's length estate sale for $320,000, has established a revised just value based on the evidence submitted. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.J\.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 2018-00106 Page 2 of 4 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521 ), and Section 193.011, F .S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. The SM did consider the PAO's and PET's evidence and is in agreement that the property sale of $320,000 was credible and in addition the sales data provided by the petitioner did support and overcome the burden of proof. The PET's evidence is considered credible and supportive of a value change. Special Magistrate has determined that PET's value is correct. PAO did not support the value. PAO Presumption of Correctness has been overcome by a preponderance of the PET's evidence. (Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. PET' s value is determined by the evidence to be correct. 2018-00106 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00106: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00106: 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 initially provided evidence that appeared to establish a presumption of correctness, however the petitioner's evidence overcame the presumption of correctness. Competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. PAO's value is incorrect. SM recommends the petition be granted with a revised new just value of $320,000. 2018-00106 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [Z] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-0011 o Parcel ID 21961000351 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LTD Property 2505 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 D other, explain: Decision Summary [Z] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 6,709,171.00 6,709,171.00 6,709,171.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,709,171.00 6,709,171.00 6,709,171.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,709,171.00 6,709,171.00 6,709,171.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/20/2018 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2018 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 infonnation, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00110 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00110: Petitions #110, 111, 112 & 113 were heard together, as they have the same owner and they are contiguous properties. ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner is Property Tax Consultants. The PET did not appear for this hearing; however, their office did submit an email requesting that we consider the evidence they submitted. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The [ combined 4 folio] subject is an El Dorado furniture store, which was formerly a Sports Authority. Additional portions of the subject include a paved driveway, wooded lot and a front buffer area along Pine Ridge Road. The building portion was built in 1996. It is located at 2505 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. The structure has an adjusted building size of 43,964 SF situated upon a total (all 4 folios) site of222,124 SF (5.10 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested [and combined 4 folios] just value of $7,900,618. It is important to note that the subject ( combined 4 folios) recently sold in September 2016 for $10,350,000. The combined just value equates to 76.3% of that purchase price, which is well below the normal 85% ratio the PAO could be assessing the subject. Apparently, the subject's owner did not appeal their assessment for 2017, but has elected to do so for 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF ($5,553,100), plus $933,921 of impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $6,487,021 (which is 82.1 % of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators, with 5 being relatively close to the subject. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($3,198,795) & site improvements/paving at $342,779, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $10,029,000 (rounded). The PAO could have, but does not, provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and soft costs. Thus, the PAO' s Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales to support the subject's $179.71/SF assessment. Sale 1 is the prior sale of the subject in 2016, which is the best comparable sale. The majority of the remaining sales have FAR's that range from 17%-30%, which bracket the subject's 17.9% FAR. The PAO concludes $240/SF of building area X 43,964 SF= $10,551,000 for the subject. The PAO provides the subject's prior deed from its recent sale, improved sale photographs, & CoStar sheets relating to the improved sales. Overall, the subject's assessment appears to be very well supported by the improved sales, particularly the prior sale of the subject for $10.35M. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $6,803,000 (rounded), based upon a $18/SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 20% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOI of $601,428. Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides rent comparables, cap rate information, & vacancy data. The PAO emphasizes data for freestanding retail stores using both CoStar and confidential information from the PAO's 2018-00110 Page 2 of 4 files. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good support via the three traditional approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting their limited data be considered. The PET's evidence was very simplistic and mainly consists of a cover sheet, subject's tax roll information from the PAO's web site, aerial photograph, 2018 TRIM notice, CoStar photo/basic subject information, 2018 DR-493, and very limited sales data via tax roll sheets. It does not appear the PET is requesting any specific value. The PET also fails to demonstrate the zoning, comparability, or reason for selecting the sale(s) provided. To some extent, the PET appears to be attempting to show lower land sales, but there is insufficient information in the record provided by the PET to determine comparability. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & mostly information from the PAO's web site. There is no real analysis of the PET's data sufficient for me to determine the intent of what the PET is seeking to portray. The PET also does not appear to request any specific value ( even though the PET does not have to identify a value being requested). The prior sale of the subject in 2016 is given strong significance, as it provides excellent support for the combined assessment of all 4 folios that where purchased together & are being heard together at this hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00110: 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 2018-00110 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00110 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00111 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LTD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 21961000704 Property address NAPLES, FL Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 808,125.00 808,125.00 808,125.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 808,125.00 808,125.00 808,125.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 808,125.00 808,125.00 808,125.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/20/2018 Date 12/04/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00111 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00111: Petitions #110, 111, 112 & 113 were heard together, as they have the same owner and they are contiguous properties. ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner is Property Tax Consultants. The PET did not appear for this hearing; however, their office did submit an email requesting that we consider the evidence they submitted. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The [combined 4 folio] subject is an El Dorado furniture store, which was formerly a Sports Authority. Additional portions of the subject include a paved driveway, wooded lot and a front buffer area along Pine Ridge Road. The building portion was built in 1996. It is located at 2505 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. The structure has an adjusted building size of 43,964 SF situated upon a total (all 4 folios) site of222,124 SF (5.10 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested [ and combined 4 folios] just value of $7,900,618. It is important to note that the subject ( combined 4 folios) recently sold in September 2016 for $10,350,000. The combined just value equates to 76.3% of that purchase price, which is well below the normal 85% ratio the PAO could be assessing the subject. Apparently, the subject's owner did not appeal their assessment for 2017, but has elected to do so for 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF ($5,553,100), plus $933,921 of impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $6,487,021 (which is 82.1 % of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators, with 5 being relatively close to the subject. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($3,198,795) & site improvements/paving at $342,779, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $10,029,000 (rounded). The PAO could have, but does not, provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and soft costs. Thus, the PAO' s Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales to support the subject's $179.71/SF assessment. Sale 1 is the prior sale of the subject in 2016, which is the best comparable sale. The majority of the remaining sales have FAR's that range from 17%-30%, which bracket the subject's 17 .9% FAR. The PAO concludes $240/SF of building area X 43,964 SF= $10,551,000 for the subject. The PAO provides the subject's prior deed from its recent sale, improved sale photographs, & CoStar sheets relating to the improved sales. Overall, the subject's assessment appears to be very well supported by the improved sales, particularly the prior sale of the subject for $10.35M. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $6,803,000 (rounded), based upon a $18/SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 20% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOI of $601,428. Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides rent comparables, cap rate information, & vacancy data. The PAO emphasizes data for freestanding retail stores using both CoS tar and confidential information from the PAO' s 2018-00111 Page 2 of 4 files. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good support via the three traditional approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting their limited data be considered. The PET's evidence was very simplistic and mainly consists of a cover sheet, subject's tax roll information from the PAO's web site, aerial photograph, 2018 TRIM notice, CoStar photo/basic subject information, 2018 DR-493, and very limited sales data via tax roll sheets. It does not appear the PET is requesting any specific value. The PET also fails to demonstrate the zoning, comparability, or reason for selecting the sale(s) provided. To some extent, the PET appears to be attempting to show lower land sales, but there is insufficient information in the record provided by the PET to determine comparability. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & mostly information from the PAO's web site. There is no real analysis of the PET's data sufficient for me to determine the intent of what the PET is seeking to portray. The PET also does not appear to request any specific value ( even though the PET does not have to identify a value being requested). The prior sale of the subject in 2016 is given strong significance, as it provides excellent support for the combined assessment of all 4 folios that where purchased together & are being heard together at this hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00111: 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 2018-00111 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00111 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12O-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00112 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LTD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 21961000762 Property address NAPLES, FL Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 235,222.00 235,222.00 235,222.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 235,222.00 235,222.00 235,222.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 235,222.00 235,222.00 235,222.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. IZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/20/2018 Date 12/04/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00112 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00112: Petitions #110, 111, 112 & 113 were heard together, as they have the same owner and they are contiguous properties. ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner is Property Tax Consultants. The PET did not appear for this hearing; however, their office did submit an email requesting that we consider the evidence they submitted. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The [combined 4 folio] subject is an El Dorado furniture store, which was formerly a Sports Authority. Additional portions of the subject include a paved driveway, wooded lot and a front buffer area along Pine Ridge Road. The building portion was built in 1996. It is located at 2505 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. The structure has an adjusted building size of 43,964 SF situated upon a total (all 4 folios) site of 222,124 SF ( 5 .10 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested [and combined 4 folios] just value of $7,900,618. It is important to note that the subject ( combined 4 folios) recently sold in September 2016 for $10,350,000. The combined just value equates to 76.3% of that purchase price, which is well below the normal 85% ratio the PAO could be assessing the subject. Apparently, the subject's owner did not appeal their assessment for 2017, but has elected to do so for 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF ($5,553,100), plus $933,921 of impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $6,487,021 (which is 82.1 % of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators, with 5 being relatively close to the subject. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($3,198,795) & site improvements/paving at $342,779, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $10,029,000 (rounded). The PAO could have, but does not, provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and soft costs. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales to support the subject's $179.71/SF assessment. Sale 1 is the prior sale of the subject in 2016, which is the best comparable sale. The majority of the remaining sales have FAR's that range from 17%-30%, which bracket the subject's 17.9% FAR. The PAO concludes $240/SF of building area X 43,964 SF= $10,551,000 for the subject. The PAO provides the subject's prior deed from its recent sale, improved sale photographs, & CoStar sheets relating to the improved sales. Overall, the subject's assessment appears to be very well supported by the improved sales, particularly the prior sale of the subject for $10.35M. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $6,803,000 (rounded), based upon a $18/SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 20% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOI of$601,428. Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides rent comparables, cap rate information, & vacancy data. The PAO emphasizes data for freestanding retail stores using both CoStar and confidential information from the PAO's 2018-00112 Page 2 of 4 files. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good support via the three traditional approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting their limited data be considered. The PET's evidence was very simplistic and mainly consists of a cover sheet, subject's tax roll information from the PAO's web site, aerial photograph, 2018 TRIM notice, CoStar photo/basic subject information, 2018 DR-493, and very limited sales data via tax roll sheets. It does not appear the PET is requesting any specific value. The PET also fails to demonstrate the zoning, comparability, or reason for selecting the sale(s) provided. To some extent, the PET appears to be attempting to show lower land sales, but there is insufficient information in the record provided by the PET to determine comparability. RULING: The PET' s presentation is extremely weak & mostly information from the PAO's web site. There is no real analysis of the PET's data sufficient for me to determine the intent of what the PET is seeking to portray. The PET also does not appear to request any specific value ( even though the PET does not have to identify a value being requested). The prior sale of the subject in 2016 is given strong significance, as it provides excellent support for the combined assessment of all 4 folios that where purchased together & are being heard together at this hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO' s assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00112: 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 2018-00112 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00112 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 IZ] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00113 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LTD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 21961000856 Property address NAPLES, FL Decision Summary IZ] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 148,100.00 148,100.00 148,100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 148,100.00 148,100.00 148,100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 148,100.00 148,100.00 148,100.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/20/2018 Date 12/04/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axict:J D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00113 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00113: Petitions #110, 111, 112 & 113 were heard together, as they have the same owner and they are contiguous properties. ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner is Property Tax Consultants. The PET did not appear for this hearing; however, their office did submit an email requesting that we consider the evidence they submitted. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The [ combined 4 folio] subject is an El Dorado furniture store, which was formerly a Sports Authority. Additional portions of the subject include a paved driveway, wooded lot and a front buffer area along Pine Ridge Road. The building portion was built in 1996. It is located at 2505 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. The structure has an adjusted building size of 43,964 SF situated upon a total (all 4 folios) site of 222,124 SF (5.10 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested [and combined 4 folios] just value of $7,900,618. It is important to note that the subject ( combined 4 folios) recently sold in September 2016 for $10,350,000. The combined just value equates to 76.3% of that purchase price, which is well below the normal 85% ratio the PAO could be assessing the subject. Apparently, the subject's owner did not appeal their assessment for 2017, but has elected to do so for 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF ($5,553,100), plus $933,921 of impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $6,487,021 (which is 82.1 % of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators, with 5 being relatively close to the subject. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($3,198,795) & site improvements/paving at $342,779, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $10,029,000 (rounded). The PAO could have, but does not, provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and soft costs. Thus, the PAO' s Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales to support the subject's $179.71/SF assessment. Sale 1 is the prior sale of the subject in 2016, which is the best comparable sale. The majority of the remaining sales have FAR's that range from 17%-30%, which bracket the subject's 17.9% FAR. The PAO concludes $240/SF of building area X 43,964 SF= $10,551,000 for the subject. The PAO provides the subject's prior deed from its recent sale, improved sale photographs, & CoStar sheets relating to the improved sales. Overall, the subject's assessment appears to be very well supported by the improved sales, particularly the prior sale of the subject for $10.35M. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $6,803,000 (rounded), based upon a $18/SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 20% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOI of $601,428. Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides rent comparables, cap rate information, & vacancy data. The PAO emphasizes data for freestanding retail stores using both CoStar and confidential information from the PAO's 2018-00113 Page 2 of 4 files. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good support via the three traditional approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting their limited data be considered. The PET's evidence was very simplistic and mainly consists of a cover sheet, subject's tax roll information from the PAO's web site, aerial photograph, 2018 TRIM notice, CoStar photo/basic subject information, 2018 DR-493, and very limited sales data via tax roll sheets. It does not appear the PET is requesting any specific value. The PET also fails to demonstrate the zoning, comparability, or reason for selecting the sale(s) provided. To some extent, the PET appears to be attempting to show lower land sales, but there is insufficient information in the record provided by the PET to determine comparability. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & mostly information from the PAO's web site. There is no real analysis of the PET's data sufficient for me to determine the intent of what the PET is seeking to portray. The PET also does not appear to request any specific value ( even though the PET does not have to identify a value being requested). The prior sale of the subject in 2016 is given strong significance, as it provides excellent support for the combined assessment of all 4 folios that where purchased together & are being heard together at this hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00113: 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 2018-00113 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00113 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [Z] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00115 Parcel ID 17011400006 Petitioner name PORT ROYAL PROPERTY LLC The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record O taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 1333 GALLEON DR NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary [Z] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 29,367,626.00 29,367,626.00 29,367,626.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 29,367,626.00 29,367,626.00 29,367,626.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 29,367,626.00 29,367,626.00 29,367,626.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00115 Page I of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00115: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00115: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Mr. Shankaran Nair, Ryan Benson, builder and Peter Repucci, real estate agent. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $29,367,626. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 1333 Galleon Drive, Port Royal. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided evidence which included a discussion on the cost of construction and estimates for design features in the home that a new buyer may not want to keep the current interior design and therefore would require significant costs to remodel. Petitioner also argued for a reduction due to 15% cost of sale. However, the petitioner's evidence did contain market data to support a decrease in value and in-fact during the course of the hearing the petitioner agreed that the land value estimate of the POA was supported. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has 2018-00115 Page 2 of 4 sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b ), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM 2018-00115 Page 3 of 4 shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does not overcome the PAO's value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00115: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00115: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of$29,367,626 is presumed correct 2018-00115 Page 4 of 4 Received On: 11/6/2018 9:40:35 AM Magistrates Worksheet ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. Petition No: 2018-00119 DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final O 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00119 Petitioner name SCHADT 111, OLIVERS The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record O taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 22455700409 Property 7818 ASHTONRD address NAPLES, FL 34113 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition O Granted your petition O Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 359,398.00 359,398.00 359,398.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 359,398.00 359,398.00 359,398.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 359,398.00 359,398.00 359,398.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/01/2018 Date 11/05/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D 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 2018-00119 Page I of 4 Received On: 11/6/2018 9:40:35 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2018-00119 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00119: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00119: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Oliver Schadt. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $359,398. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 7818 Ashton Road, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided testimony which included a discussion on the purchase of the home in Mayo 2018 and repair issues that the home needed after the purchase. However, the petitioner's evidence for 2018 is not a consideration for the property as of the valuation date 01/01/2018. In addition, there was no evidence provided to support a decrease in value where the POA evidence was supportive. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (I), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b ), F.A.C. 2018-00119 Page 2 of 4 Received On: 11/6/2018 9:40:35 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2018-00119 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F .S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does not overcome the PAO's value. 2018-00119 Page 3 of 4 Received On: 11/6/2018 9:40:35 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2018-00119 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00119: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00116: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $359,398 is presumed correct. 2018-00119 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00121 Petitioner name SHERRY, STEVEN p LUCINDA A The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 62778520009 Property 718 99THAVE N address NAPLES, FL 34108 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 247,407.00 247,407.00 247,407.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 247,407.00 247,407.00 247,407.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 247,407.00 247,407.00 247,407.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/01/2018 Date 11/05/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00121 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00121: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00121: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Steven Sherry. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $247,407. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 718 99th Avenue N, Naples Park. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO' s report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided testimony which included a discussion on the new construction of a home next door and how that negatively should impact the value of the petitioner's home. The petitioner provided no market evidence to support a decrease in the market value where the POA evidence was supportive of market value. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase 'just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9 .025 (1 ), Florida Administrative Code (F .A. C. ). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9 .025(2)(b ), F.A.C. 2018-00121 Page 2 of 4 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193 .011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does not overcome the PAO's value. 2018-00121 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00121: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00121: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of$247,407 is presumed correct. 2018-00121 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00127 Parcel ID 27634960007 Petitioner name VENTRESCA JR, MARIO C, PAMELA A VEb Property 128 HERON AVE The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,422,867.00 1,422,867.00 1,422,867.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,027,535.00 1,027,535.00 1,027,535.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,027,535.00 1,027,535.00 1,027,535.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axice D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00127 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00127: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00127: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Mario Ventresca. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $1,422,867. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 128 Heron Avenue, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided no evidence and discussed assessments in the area for other properties. The petitioner did not provide any credible market data to overcome the presumption of correctness and the appraiser did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.01 I. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase 'just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b ), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00127 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F .S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does not overcome the PAO' s value. 2018-00127 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00127: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00127: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $1,422,867 is presumed correct. 2018-00127 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00166 Parcel ID 57809160000 Petitioner name MARTIN, RONALD C The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property 598 HEATHWOOD DR address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 277,288.00 277,288.00 277,288.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 189,148.00 189,148.00 189,148.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 189,148.00 189,148.00 189,148.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi~ D 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 2018-00166 Page I of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00166: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET), Mr. Ronald Martin, is the owner of the subject property., PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $277,288. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property a vacant dry lot-no water frontage. The lot size is .44 acres. The site size has an adjusted front foot (FF) of 126.04 ft. The site is zoned residential. The property is located at 598 South Heathwood Drive, Marco Island FL PAO's following report, applies to all petitions in the year 2018 and is The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report which contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 31 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning and aerial of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach only, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. 2018-00166 Page 2 of 6 The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 6 land sales. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to August 2017. PAO indicated that land sales from different neighborhoods were researched and included in the analysis; PAO indicated that some of the sales were cleared of trees and some were not. The subject is a cleared lot. The land sales were analyzed on a price per front foot (FF); the sales range in size from 80.00 FF to 137.68 FF. The adjusted sales range from $1,916 to $3,330 /FF with a mean of$2,458/FF and a median of $2,198/FF. PAO reconciled at $2,400/FF x 126.04= $302,500 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $277,288 or $2,200/FF. PET's evidence was a 4-page report which consisted of a cover letter, and a list of 57 sales of vacant land on Marco Island. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Sales in chart form. The residential sales range from $50,000 to $400,000 for sales that occurred in the year 2017. PET indicated the majority of the sales are well below PAO's estimate. PET's sales in the upper range are located in a much superior location. PET indicated that PAO' s sales # 1 to 4 are located in the estate area which is a superior location to his property. PAO indicated that PAO's sales# 1 to 4 provide the best support for the subject with these 4 sales ranging from $1,916 to $2,397/ff, sales# 5 and 6 have a range of $3,125 to $3,330/ff. PAO indicated that some sales provided by PET were commercial sales. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2018-00166 Page 3 of 6 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the fallowing manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO did not develop the Cost Approach; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for vacant land; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. 2018-00166 Page 4 of 6 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not analyze the sale he provided, it is difficult to determine the value of the subject property from the information provided by PET. PAO's sales and analysis of the subject property was considered more relevant and sufficient and PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00166: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not analyze the sale he provided, it is difficult to determine the value of the subject property from the information provided by PET. PAO's sales and analysis of the subject property was considered more relevant and sufficient and PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not demonstrate that PET' s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 2018-00166 Page 5 of 6 Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00166 Page 6 of 6 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00167 Petitioner name MARTA SUAREZ R/L TRUST The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 12782360001 Property 1927 CRAYTON RD address NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary D Denied your petition [l] Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,153,594.00 1,153,594.00 850,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 810,227.00 810,227.00 810,227.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 810,227.00 810,227.00 810,227.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [ll Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiavv D 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 2018-00167 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00167: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris Woolsey, Esq. [PAO's legal counsel] & Ms. Jenny Blaje, & Ms. Maryanne Greger. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. Carl Suarez. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a I-story single family home built in 1964, yet (due to renovations) the PAO gives it an effective date of 33 years (i.e. year 1985 construction). The street address is 1927 Crayton Road in Naples. The subject has a living area of 1,666 SF, and an adjusted building size of 2, 1644 SF situated upon a site 0.37 acres. The subject's interior lot is not on the water. PRIOR SALE OF THE SUBJECT: The subject has not sold in more than 30 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted two traditional approaches (Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach) to value to support the contested just value of $1,153,594. The PAO also provided the subject's plat map, aerial photo, location map, ground level photos, building sketch, improved sales/land sales map, land sale grid, improved sales grids (12 total sales), & back-up photos/sketches for the various improved sales. It is noted that the PAO did not provide Marshall Valuation support for his Cost Approach inputs. All of the PAO's evidence submitted is relevant to this hearing and class of property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12,000/front feet X 100 FF X 1.02 depth factor, or $1,224,000. That land value is based upon 3 land sales in close proximity to the subject during 2017. It appears that Land Sale #1 ($11,270/FF) is the best & most comparable, given it is also on the subject's higher traffic flow street like the subject'. Those land sales provide a range in $/FF indicators from $11,270-$12,374. The PAO also considers site improvements of $0 (zero), and impact fees of $0 (zero), and a depreciated building value of $72,394. The PAO does NOT provide back-up improvement cost information from Marshall Valuation. The PAO concludes a final Cost Approach value indication of $1,296,394. Given the most comparable land sale (#1), the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion appears about $75,000 high, yet still generally supportive of the assessment of $1,153,594. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 12 improved sales from 2017. I give no weight to Sales 2, 4 & 7, given these are much newer homes built in 2016-17. The remaining 7 sales do adjust out within reason to support the subject's assessment, yet the magnitude of some of the PAO's adjustments appear questionable. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness via the valuation approaches presented. PAO's Rebuttal Evidence: The PAO did present rebuttal evidence consisting of land & building assessment breakdowns for his 3 land sales and all of the PAO's improved sales. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing and did submit evidence into the record. The PET submitted a cover letter, chart of sales on Crayton Road, and chart of assessed values on Crayton Road (between Springline and Rudder Road), plat map showing sales in very close proximity to the subject. The PET argues properties on the west side of Crayton Road (like the subject) are assessed greater than the east side of Crayton Road. The PET is requesting a just value of $850,000 (i.e. 2018-00167 Page 2 of 4 $IM X 85%). To a large extent, the PET is comparing assessments (as well as sales) in close proximity to the subject. Some of the assessment disparities could have been due to imperfect survey information for many lot sizes in the vicinity. The PET also argues the PAO used large 'east vs. west' (i.e. east or west of Crayton Road) valuation groups, and many properties (like the subject) on the west side of Crayton should not be any different than similar size lots directly across the street on the east side, given (the PET argues) the market would not realize such a difference. RULING: Given the PET provides very recent sales and assessment information along Crayton Road in extremely close proximity (within a block) of the subject, it appears the PET's assertions are justified and the PAO 's methodology of assessment groups (i.e. east vs. west ON Crayton Road) do not appear to be supported by market evidence. I given weight to a $I.IM interior east side lot sale in 10/2016 for $I.IM (then demolished), $ l. l 6M east side sale on comer in 6/2016 ( then demolished), and virtually identical interior lot on east side directly across the street from the subject that sold 1/16/2018 for $1 M, which is the best sale. This is highly compelling and justifies a substantial reduction. It is recommended the subject's just value be reduced to $850,000 (i.e. $1 M X 85%). While it is understandable and reasonable that certain areas or groups of homes/ lots can tend to trend together in value over time, the PAO should be careful to when strictly considering a reasonably busy street as a dividing line. It may well be far more reasonable to assume & expect properties on both sides of that busier street to have value trend expectations that are the same ( or extremely similar due to the exact same traffic counts), yet lots behind those fronting the busier artery to be different for other locational reasons. While it does not appear there was an intentional overassessment for the subject, it does appear there are flaws in the PAO's mass appraisal modeling assumptions that are not supported by actual market behavior. The PET did a good job of addressing his points, as supported by data. The land value appears to be a very key component of value at this hearing. It appears many structures of the subject's vintage are being demolished. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00167: 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 2018-00167 Page 3 of 4 overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2018-00167 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 IZ] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00180 Parcel ID 26095000264 Petitioner name TIM HART Property The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address 3807 WHITE LAKEBLVD NAPLES, FL 34117 D other, explain: Decision Summary IZI Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 8,279,821.00 8,279,821.00 8,279,821.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,279,821.00 8,279,821.00 8,279,821.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,279,821.00 8,279,821.00 8,279,821.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2018 Date 11/09/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00180 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00180: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Tim Hart) with Property Tax Solutions did not appear for this hearing; however, his office did submit an email requesting that we consider his evidence. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a self-storage facility known as City Gate Self Storage. From the PAO's photographs, the subject appears to be a modem 2-story 100% air conditioned building. It is a new facility built in 2017 & located at 3807 White Lake Boulevard in Naples. This location is very convenient, as it is at the NE corner of the interchange ofI-75 and Collier Boulevard in an area experiencing new growth. The subject has an adjusted building size of 129,930 SF situated upon a site of 188,615 SFSF (4.33 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $8,279,821 (i.e. $63. 73/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12/SF ($2,263,380), plus $172,878 of impact fees for a total of $2,436,258 (which is 29.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 8 commercial land sale indicators, with #2,3,5, 6, 7, & 8 being extremely close to the subject (all at the same NE quadrant of the I-75 interchange) and very supportive of the $12/SF figure. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the (barely) depreciated value of the almost new improvements ($8,443,820) & site improvements/paving at $11,765, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $10,892,000 (rounded). The PAO could have but does does not provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and soft costs. The PAO's site/paving cost appears very low for a site of this size. The PAO also should have added a line item to achieve the level of occupancy achieved as of the assessment date. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. The PAO notes the subject's building permit value was $17,850,449, which obviously excludes the land cost. The PAO indicated that permit value appeared high for some reason, yet the PET was not present to explain the reason. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 9 improved sales from various SW Florida counties in Florida to support the subject's $63.73/SF assessment. Sales 1, 2 & 9 are from Lee County & they range from $90.68-$185.23/SF. Sales 3-8 are from Collier County and the highest five sales range from $134.56-248.43/SF after disregarding the oldest building age of Sale #7. The PAO concludes $145/SF of building area X 129,9308 SF = $18,840,000 for the subject. The PAO provides improved sale photographs. It is worthy to note that PAO' s Improved Sale #8 was also built in 2017 (like the subject) and it is a 3-story 100% A/C facility in Collier County. The PAO also provides CoStar back- up data related to the improved sales. It appears the local Collier/Lee self-storage market has been very active during 2016 & 2017. Sale #8 closed in 4/2018; thus, is considered for trending only (yet it is a very physically similar property to the subject & it offers the 2nd highest $/SF indicator). Overall, the subject's assessment appears to be very well supported by the improved sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $14,188,000 (rounded), based 2018-00180 Page 2 of 5 upon a $13/SF rental rate, 10% vacancy, 30% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOi of$1,064,127. The PAO provides the 'actual' and 'pro-forma' Income Approach data from the PET's evidence, which (interestingly enough) shows two different rentable area calculations of 87,067 SF and 129,930 SF, respectively. The PAO also provides general capitalization rate data from various sources. Verbally, the PAO indicated their staff surveyed various rental rates in person & on-line. However, the PAO's rental research was not provided. Furthermore, there is some degree of question as to the degree of occupancy at the time of the assessment date of 1/1/2018, given the subject received a certificate of occupancy in October 2017. It would seem logical that the subject was not at stabilized occupancy on the assessment date. Perhaps the 87,067 SF indicated in PET's 'actual' Income Approach was intended to be the SF occupied on January I st. Again, the PET was not at the hearing to answer questions. The PET's 'actual' income approach says it was at 92.1 % occupancy with a rentable area of 87,067 SF, yet (as stated before), the PET's 'pro-forma' indicates livable area (perhaps rentable?) of 129,930 SF. The numbers and stated occupancy do not appear to make sense, particularly given the subject was only open for 2+ months in the late portion of 201 7 leading up to the assessment date. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land/cost values in the subject's area, but also by the supporting evidence and inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach ( even though there are some irregularities in the data presented by the PET considered by the PAO). Given the PAO's Cost Approach & stated building permit value, it would appear the PAO' s assessment is well within reason, even for an unstabilized property. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting their data be considered. The PET' s cover sheet states the PET desires a lowered assessment of $6,574,000. The PET had recently paid $2.2M for the land in November 2016; thus, that implies a building contribution of 4,374,000 for 129,930. or $33.66/SF of building area. This is in contrast to the building permit value of $17 .8M. The PET submitted an Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, DR-493, tax roll breakdown from the internet, aerial photograph, location map, 2018 TRIM notice, partial opening year income/expense statement, rent/expense analysis, market data/surveys, CoStar sale of a brand new self-storage facility (that sold for $159 .31/SF 100% vacant), self-storage cap rate survey, actual expense analysis from various facilities in unknown markets for unknown years, insurance rate analysis, various articles, Comparable Sales Approach, sales back-up data, and a copy of the hearing notice. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET provides both an 'actual' (unstabilized) Income Approach, as well as a 'pro-forma' Income Approach. The 'actual' presentation is not prepared in accordance with accepted appraisal standards, as it appears to take a non- stabilized occupancy and capitalizes the NOi (at a loss) into perpetuity. It makes no sense. The 'pro-forma' version uses a different livable (i.e. rentable) area than the 'actual' version and it fails to provide a discount for lease-up. The subject had only been open for 2+ months, given a CO in October 2017 and a 1/1/2-018 assessment date. The 2018-00180 Page 3 of 5 detailed income/expense report shown (as of December 2017) is not a full year (or probably not even a full quarter); thus, unreliable for annualizing into meaningful projections for a full year. The PET's 'Rent/Expense Analysis' for various geographic areas of Florida appears to have been relied upon by the PET to some extent, given it shows a median rent received of $11.01/SF & the PET projects $11/SF in his pro-forma analysis. However, the subject is a brand new 100% A/C facility and the rent comparables in that survey in Naples, while only 80% of the properties in the survey are air conditioned. This skews the revenue data to lower levels than would be expected for the subject; thus, the PET's pro-forma is unreliable. In the PET's Comparable Assessment Analysis presented on page 26, the PET fails to provide the year built for each of the assessment comparables. The FAR ( or L TB ratio) could have been shown too, given land and building areas are provided. Regardless, the analysis is inconclusive without the building ages provided, even though the subject's assessment/SF of building area happens to be higher than the 5 assessment comparables provided. The PET fails to conclusive prove the PAO is assessing the subject in a different manner than other properties in its same class ( or use). In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides just 1 improved sale from Collier County built in 1995, and 7 Lee County sales built between 1946-2004 [and only 2 of those were built after 2000]. Four of the PET's sales closed during 2015, 2 in 2016, & 2 in 2017. The sales grid provided by the PET does not indicate the ratio of air conditioned space for any of the sales; but due to the older vintage it could be very likely that many of the sales have a substantial portion of non-A/C space. The PET's sales (after a 15% COS adjustment) range between $23.46-$57.37/SF. Again, most are older sales of older properties that likely have a far lower ratio of climate-controlled space. The PET provides tax roll back-up data for the sales. Overall, the PET's Sales Comparison Approach appears to consist of highly non-comparable data to the subject's new, 2-story, modem self-storage building with 100% climate-controlled units. RULING: The PET's presentation lacks good data, proper analysis, and lacks a Cost Approach. In this case, a Cost Approach is relevant, given the subject's construction was completed just months prior to the assessment date. The PET's requested value is approximately a third of the value of the subject's building permit, which appears to diminish the reason for this assessment appeal. While the PAO's presentation has some minor issues, it is a better presentation of market-oriented expectations of value. The value of the building permit is double the just value being contested, which is another factor that works against the Petitioner. The sales presented by the PAO also demonstrate substantial prices being paid for this class of property in Collier County. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO' s assessment be upheld, as the PAO' s three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00180: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. 2018-00180 Page 4 of 5 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. 2018-00180 Page 5 of 5 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [Z] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00181 Petitioner name Tl M HART The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 00145680000 Property address 15800 OLD 41 NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary [Z] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,449,291.00 3,449,291.00 3,449,291.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,198,363.00 3,198,363.00 3,198,363.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,198,363.00 3,198,363.00 3,198,363.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/09/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00181 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00181: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Tim Hart) with Property Tax Solutions did not appear for this hearing; however, his office did submit an email requesting that we consider his evidence. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Public self-storage facility. The subject was built in 1988 & 1990. It is located at 15800 Old 41, in Naples. The subject consists of five I-story storage buildings. Two of the 5 are air conditioned. The subject also has a 2-story manager's apartment/office. The subject has an adjusted building size of 62,300 SF situated upon a site of 189,486 SF ( 4.35 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $3,449,291 (i.e. $55.37/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $11.50/SF ($2,179,089), plus $66,695 of impact fees for a total of$2,245,695 (which is 65.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators, with #1 & #2 being extremely close to the subject at $10.44 & $10.95/SF, respectively. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,242,735) & site improvements/paving at $226,784, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $3,715,000 (rounded). The PAO could have but does does not provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and soft costs. The PAO also should have added a line item to achieve the level of occupancy as of the assessment date. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 5 improved sales from Lee & Collier Counties to support the subject's $55.37/SF assessment. Sale 2 ($157.64/SF) is next door to the subject, but its price/SF is skewed somewhat by the lower FAR (i.e. larger site area) of 13%, compared to the subject's 32% FAR. The majority of the remaining sales have FAR's close to 30% (similar to the subject's 32% FAR) and they offer indicators that range from $69.22-$144.20/SF. The PAO concludes $115/SF of building area X 62,300 SF= $7,165,000 for the subject. The PAO provides improved sale photographs. Sales #1, 3, & 5 are in Lee County, which is generally regarded as inferior to Collier. Those 3 sales have $/SF indicators of $113, 69.22, and 95. 70, respectively. The PAO also provides CoStar back-up data related to the improved sales. It appears the local Collier/Lee self-storage market has been very active during 2016 & 2017. Sale #5 closed in 2/2018, but it very likely was under contract on the assessment date. Overall, the subject's assessment appears to be very well supported by the improved sales, based upon visual similarities from the sales photographs provided in the PAO's evidence. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $6,803,000 (rounded), based upon a $13/SF rental rate, 10% vacancy, 30% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOi of $510,237. Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides general capitalization rate & vacancy data from various sources in his supporting evidence. The PAO also provides expense comps from 3 older facilities via confidential information 2018-00181 Page 2 of 4 from their files. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land/cost values in the subject's area, but also by the supporting evidence and inclusion of the Income Approach. I give even stronger weight to the Sales Comparison Approach, given 5 sales of visually similar properties in Lee County & Collier County are provided. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting their data be considered. The PET' s cover sheet states the PET desires a lowered assessment of $2,761,000. As previously stated in this ruling, the PAO concluded & reasonably supported $2,245,695 for the land value+ impact fees alone (which is 65.1 % of the total assessment). Thus, the PET is implying the vertical improvements are only adding a little more than $500k-$600K to the overall value. The PET submitted an Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, DR-493, tax roll breakdown from the internet, aerial photograph, location map, 2018 TRIM notice, rent/ expense analysis, market data/surveys, Co Star sale of a brand new 100% A/C self- storage facility ( that sold in Miami for $159 .31 /SF 100% vacant), self-storage cap rate survey, actual expense analysis from various facilities in unknown markets for unknown years, insurance rate analysis, various articles, Comparable Sales Approach, sales back- up data, and a copy of the hearing notice. The PET does not provide any historical operating income for the subject, and apparently that information (requested each year by the PAO) was not provided during the course of the year to the PAO for any recent years. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET provides a projected Income Approach, based upon $10/SF, 15% vacancy [even though operating at 90.5% on 1/1/2018, per the PET], $3.50/SF expenses, and a loaded OAR of 8.5% + 1.087% = 9.59% for a value conclusion of $3.249M, less 15% COS= $2,761,778. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides 5 sales from Lee County. Three closed in 2015, 1 in 2016, and 1 in 2017. Sales 4 & 5 are both built on (or prior to) 1977; thus, very old and both are much smaller than the subject (i.e. 12,800 or less) and fail to offer any reasonable degree of comparability. It appears the PET is intentionally skewing the data set of sales by ignoring Collier County sales [such as the PAO's Sale #2 next door to the subject that closed in 2017]. In addition, the ratio of A/C space is unknown for all the sales provided by the PET. The PET's Sales Comparison Approach appears weak. Sales 1-3 reflect $/SF indicators (i.e. after a 15% COS deduction) that range from $23.46-$54.54/SF. The high end is reflected by a 2015 sale. The subject's just value being contested is $55.37/SF, which is extremely close to the high end of that 2015 sale, yet 3 years have now transpired in an improving economy. RULING: The PET's presentation lacks good data, proper analysis, and lacks a Cost Approach. In most cases, a Cost Approach is relevant to help gauge H&BU and the prevailing land value (plus impact fees that run with the land). While the PAO' s presentation has some minor issues, it is a better presentation of market-oriented expectations of value. The sales presented by the PAO also demonstrate substantial prices being paid for this class of property in Collier County. Both the PAO & PET 2018-00181 Page 3 of 4 should to a better job of determining the rentable areas of the subject & all comparable properties, as what is actually rented is what creates value, not specifically the 'adjusted' building area. Additionally, the 'mix' of units and ratio of A/C vs. non-A/C space is also a key factor for this class of property. Air-conditioned units command higher rents than non-A/C space. As an added variable, sometimes open storage revenue can also be important. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00181: 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. 2018-00181 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. DR-485XC R. 01/17 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00193 Parcel ID 62362280001 Petitioner name CROTTEAU, CLARA Property 117 CAPE SABLEDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 84,962.00 66,150.00 66,150.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 84,962.00 66,150.00 66,150.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 o.oo o.oo 4. Taxable value,* required 84,962.00 66,150.00 66,150.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reason for Petition 0 Homestead D Widow/er D Blind D Totally and permanently disabled veteran D Low-income senior D Disabled D Disabled veteran D Use classification, specify D Parent/grandparent assessment reduction D Deployed military D Use exemption, specify D Transfer of homestead assessment difference D Qualifying improvement D Chanoe of ownership or control D Other, soecifv Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages as needed Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 12/09/2018 Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Date 12/12/2018 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at [!] AM D PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2018 D 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 2018-00193 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Clara Crotteau who owns property in a mobile home park located at 117 Cape Sable Drive. The property has enjoyed a homestead exemption since 2006. PAO Ex. 1 p. 5. Petitioner was represented by her daughter, Kathy Crotteau, who is referred to as Petitioner's Agent. As a preliminary matter, Petitioner's Agent requested that the Special Magistrate recuse herself due to a past working relationship between the Magistrate and Petitioner's Agent. This working relationship arose in the County Attorney's Office during the period of 2005 through 2008, when both the Magistrate and Petitioner's Agent were employed there. Although these individuals never worked closely with each other or developed a social relationship outside of the office, Petitioner's Agent stated her concerns that the Special Magistrate could not render an unbiased decision and feared that her petition would be denied by the Magistrate in the interest of avoiding any questioning of her opinion due to the appearance of conflict. The Special Magistrate disagreed with the Petitioner's Agent's claim of bias and stated that she could objectively review the evidence and render a decision uninfluenced by her past acquaintance with Petitioner's Agent. As the Special Magistrate questioned the need for recusal, the VAB Counsel was consulted per Rule 12D-9.022(4)(c), and she rendered her opinion that no basis for recusal existed under Rule 12D-9.022, Fla. Admin. Code. That opinion has been included in the record as required by the administrative rules. Petitioner's Agent was advised of V AB counsel's determination and the grounds underlying her determination were read into the record. The Property Appraiser's Office ("PAO") was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemption and Customer Service Departments, Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions, Melissa Revoredo, Supervisor of Customer Service Department and J. Christopher Woolsey, Attorney for the Property Appraiser. Petitioner admitted her evidence package without objection as Exhibits A, B, C and D. The PAO's evidence was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1, consisting of 14 pages. The Petitioner notified the PAO on November 17, 2017, that her mobile home had been damaged by Hurricane Irma and that she intended to remove the home. PAO Ex. 1., p.7. Petitioner's Agent likewise testified that Petitioner learned that she had insufficient insurance coverage to replace the mobile home. As a result of this financial situation, she had no financial ability and no intention to replace the home and return to the property as her permanent homestead. (Crotteau). Due to her financial situation, Petitioner was required to move in with her daughter in Ft. Myers. (Crotteau) On November 9, 2017, Petitioner requested a change of address from the PAO to 17451 Overhill Drive, Apt. B, Ft. Myers. PAO Ex. 1, p. 6. The PAO sent a letter notifying Petitioner of the limitations on a temporary address change and the requirements of residing on the property for purposes of homestead exemption. The letter requested that Petitioner indicate whether she had moved and provided a space for Petitioner to provide this information. Petitioner indicated on the letter that she moved on October 2, 2017. PAO Ex. 1, p.8. Petitioner changed her address on her Driver's license on November 16, 2017 to the 2018-00193 Page 2 of 4 same Ft. Myers address. PAO Ex. 1, p. 9-10. Petitioner contracted for the removal of the mobile home in December. (Crotteau) The demolition permit was applied for on January 5, 2018. P. Ex. C. The subject property is now listed for sale as a vacant lot. PAO Ex. 1, p.12. As a result of the change of address being initiated by the Petitioner and the subsequent confirmation as to her intent to live elsewhere, the PAO removed the homestead exemption from the property on November 22, 2017. Petitioner appeals the removal of the homestead. This is not an appeal from a denial or disapproval of a homestead application and no review under 196.193, Fla. Stat., is necessary. At the outset of the hearing, PAO announced the new TRIM figures based on land alone. Ycabeta. Conclusions of Law: The Florida Constitution provides that every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner. .. shall be exempt from taxation thereon, except assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of twenty-five thousand dollars and, for all levies other than school district levies, on the assessed valuation greater than fifty thousand dollars and up to seventy- five thousand dollars. Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. Section 193.011, Fla. Stat. implements this constitutional entitlement and states that "a person who, on January 1, has the legal title ... to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence ... is entitled to an exemption from all taxation .. . . " When determining whether the property owner is entitled to an exemption, the operative date is January 1. In this case there is no dispute that Petitioner owned the subject property and that this property was her homestead for many years prior to 2018. Nor is it disputed that the home remained on the land as of January 1, 2018. The property however was damaged beyond repair by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. As the PAO correctly notes, the law permits a homeowner to retain her homestead exemption for a period of three years if the property is damaged by calamity and rendered uninhabitable on January 1. Section 196.031, Fla. Stat. However, in this instance, the law requires that the homeowner "intends to repair or rebuild the property and live in the property as his or her primary residence after the property is repaired or rebuilt and does not claim a homestead exemption on any other property .... " The evidence was credible and unequivocal on this point. The evidence was credible and relevant and showed that Petitioner, after discovering that she could not afford to rebuild her property, had no intention to return; rather she intended to remove the mobile home and sell the property as a vacant lot. (Crotteau; Ybaceta). While on the rare occasion the lack of physical occupancy by the homeowner may not defeat the maintenance of the homestead exemption, in that instance there must be evident an abiding intention to make the property one's true, fixed and permanent residence and to return to the residence after an absence therefrom. Section 196.011 (17), Fla. Stat. Had the Petitioner 2018-00193 Page 3 of 4 not decided in 2017 to remove the mobile home and not return to the property, the result would have been different. Unfortunately, that was not the case here. Much to their credit, both Petitioner and Petitioner's Agent admitted Petitioner's true intentions, even knowing that these admissions might defeat the case. This was not an instance of a temporary absence from the property, but a permanent move to live with her daughter in Ft. Myers. Petitioner has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's denial of her homestead exemption is wrong. The overall weight of the evidence was insufficient to meet Petitioner's burden of proof. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she intended to rebuild and return to the property as her permanent and fixed residence and that the removal of the homestead by the PAO was wrong. Consequently the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2018-00193 Page 4 of 4 IJ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00195 Parcel ID 69810880008 Petitioner name LAMOTHE, DENIS, JOSEE SAUVAGEAU The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 51 TWIN PALMSDR NAPLES, FL 34114 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 75,298.00 75,298.00 46,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 61,057.00 61,057.00 46,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 61,057.00 61,057.00 46,000.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 10/29/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi~ D 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 2018-00195 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00195: FINDINGS OF FACT: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. PAO's were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $75,298. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as vacant land, located in a 55+ mobile home community. The mobile home, which occupied the site originally, was destroyed by hurricane Irma in September 2017 and the damaged mobile home was removed from the site. The site size is .17 acres or 7,405-sf; the adjusted front foot is 68.41. The property is located at 51 Twins Palm Drive, Naples FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 26 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning and aerial of the subject. PAO developed 2018-00195 Page 2 of 6 Sales Comparison Approach only, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 5 land sales. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to October 2017. The land sales were analyzed on a price per front foot (FF); the sales range in size from 60 FF to 63 FF. Sales# 1 and 3 are vacant land, Sales 2, 4 and 5 were improved with mobile homes at time of sale; PAO extracted the assessed value of the mobile home from the sale price to arrive at a net price for the land only. PAO indicated the land sales, post hurricane Irma, are selling at below market prices. The adjusted sales range from $500.00 to $1,498 /FF with an average of $803/ff. If the high and low sales are excluded, the average price is $672.33/ FF. PAO reconciled at $1,144/FF or $75,298. PAO's just value conclusion: $75,298. PET' s evidence was a 5-page report which consisted of a photograph of the site, MLS Listing of the site with site details, letter indicating they would not be attending the hearing and an invoice for the removal of the damaged mobile home. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET has listed the property for sale at $65,000 and the price has been reduced to $55,000. The MLS indicates the property has been on the market for 228 days with no sale. PET estimated value: $55,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January I of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc.v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the 2018-00195 Page 3 of 6 evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193 .011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F .S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC.; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO did not develop the Cost Approach; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for vacant land; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment 2018-00195 Page 4 of 6 was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. Special Magistrate has determined PAO's value is overstated. PAO's adjusted sales range from $500.00 to $1,498 /FF with an average of $803/ff. If the high and low sales are excluded, the average price is $672.33/FF. PAO's Sale# 1 is a vacant site next door to the subject and sold for $500/FF; PAO's Sale# 3 is a vacant site in the same subdivision that sold for $680/FF. These two sales are a good current indicator of value for vacant sites in the subdivision. PET has the property listed for sale, the original asking price was $65,000 and was reduced to an asking price of $55,000 or $835.61/F. The listing indicates the property has been on the market for 228 days and has had a price reduction. The listing price of the property and the number of days the property has been on the market without a sale and the fact that the listing has been reduced in price is a strong indicator of the lack of demand for the site at the current listing price. The market is indicating the lots in this subdivision are selling lower than PAO' s estimate of $75,298. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM has reviewed PAO's sales referenced above and has taken PAO's comment into consideration that the sale of sites in this subdivision are selling at "fire sale prices"(below market value). Taking into consideration that the average sale price is $672.33/FF, excluding PAO's high and low sale, and the current listing price at $55,000 or $835.61/FF; SM has estimated the site at $700/FF or $46,074, rounded to $46,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00195: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted 2018-00195 Page 5 of 6 appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) Special Magistrate has determined PAO's value is overstated. PAO's adjusted sales range from $500.00 to $1,498 /FF with an average of $803/ff. If the high and low sales are excluded, the average price is $672.33/FF. PAO's Sale# 1 is a vacant site next door to the subject and sold for $500/FF; PAO's Sale# 3 is a vacant site in the same subdivision that sold for $680/FF. These two sales are a good current indicator of value for vacant sites in the subdivision. PET has the property listed for sale, the original asking price was $65,000 and was reduced to an asking price of $55,000 or $835.61/F. The listing indicates the property has been on the market for 228 days and has had a price reduction. The listing price of the property and the number of days the property has been on the market without a sale and the fact that the listing has been reduced in price is a strong indicator of the lack of demand for the site at the current listing price. The market is indicating the lots in this subdivision are selling lower than PAO's estimate of $75,298. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $46,000. 2018-00195 Page 6 of 6 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00207 Parcel ID 00462040006 Petitioner name STEVEN R DAVIES The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address NAPLES, FL Decision Summary lll Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none Value from TRIM Notice 35,000.00 33,275.00 0.00 Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 35,000.00 33,275.00 0.00 After Board Action 35,000.00 33,275.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 33,275.00 33,275.00 33,275.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/19/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiclJ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00207 Page I of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00207: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) Mr. Steven Davies, the owner of the property, was present. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $35,000. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO indicated that evidence was requested from Petitioner and that Petitioner did not submit evidence requested to PAO at least 15 days before the hearing. There was no evidence exchange between PAO and Petitioner. PAO indicated they had spoken with PET several times to discuss the property. PAO described the property as a wooded, vacant 10-acre parcel, used by PET as a hunting camp. The property is located within a state park and has no street address. Access to the property was restricted due to hurricane Irma; during the hurricane several trees had fallen over the access road, making access to the property impossible. PAO indicated they had contacted the Department of Forestry to inform them of the access problem to the subject site; the Department of Forestry is responsible for removal of down trees over access roads. PAO suggested PET contact the key person at the Department of Forestry to have the trees removed. There was no evidence exchanged between PAO and PET and no evidence was presented at the hearing. However, the Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 ( 1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $35,000. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did have evidence to submit at the hearing; however, PAO objected to presentation of PE T's evidence as the evidence was specifically requested prior to the hearing and said evidence was not submitted to Property Appraiser's Office. PET did not present any 2018-00207 Page 2 of 3 evidence at the hearing. PET's evidence was not admitted for consideration. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. SM communicated with V AB legal counsel concerning hearings where no evidence is exchanged between PAO and PET. SM was seeking assurance on the procedure of such hearings. See Rule 12D9.030 (6) F.A.C Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00207: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner's evidence cannot be introduced because said evidence was specifically requested of the Petitioner in writing by the Property Appraiser's Office and the Petitioner's evidence was not submitted to Property Appraiser's office 15 days before the hearing. Since the Petitioner has no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired." 2018-00207 Page 3 of 3 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00222 Parcel ID 69288001008 Petitioner name KNIGHT, WILLIAM & INA M Property 9204 MERCATO WAY The petitioner is: [l] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,559,210.00 1,559,210.00 1,559,210.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,240,407.00 1,240,407.00 1,240,407.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,240,407.00 1,240,407.00 1,240,407.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/06/2018 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axictJ D 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 2018-00222 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00222: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00222: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner William Knight. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $1,559,210. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 9204 Mercato Way, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO' s report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided evidence which included the sale of the property July 2018 and other sales that occurred in 2018 which is irrelevant as the date of valuation for tax purposes of January 1, 2018. The petitioner did not provide any credible market data to overcome the presumption of correctness and the appraiser did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase ''just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2018-00222 Page 2 of 4 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does 2018-00222 Page 3 of 4 not overcome the PAO' s value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00222: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00222: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $1,559,210 is presumed correct. 2018-00222 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00224 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 14020840003 Property address 365 5TH AVES NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 10,830,179.00 10,830,179.00 10,076,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,764,256.00 9,764,256.00 9,764,256.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,764,256.00 9,764,256.00 9,764,256.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/04/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi~ D 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 2018-00224 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00224: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Nicholas Mau CCIM, who did appear & submitted evidence for this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a mixed-use property in the '5th Avenue South' shopping district in downtown Naples. The subject consists of the first two floors in a 3-story building. The top floor consists of residential condominiums that are NOT a part of this hearing, but the bottom two floors are. The subject's ground floor is retail & the subject's 2nd floor is office. According to the PAO's building sketches, the 1st floor has 7,152 SF of adjusted area, while the 2nd floor has 10,880 SF of office adjusted area. The subject's address is 365 5th Avenue South. The subject was built in 1995, yet the PAO gives it an effective year built of 2010, due to many permits for remodeling over time. The subject has an adjusted building size of 21,476 SF situated upon a site of 24,996 SF (0.57 acres). There is a very limited amount of on-site parking, some of which is dedicated to the non-subject residential condominium units on the top floor. SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: The subject last sold (as a leased fee sale as part of a portfolio of 8 properties, per the PET's testimony) for $11,824,500 uust the subject's portion of the sale] on October 9, 2015. The PAO provides a deed & CoStar summary related to the prior bulk sale. The 2018 assessment equates to 91.6% of the allocated prior sales price, yet over 2 years have subsequently transpired since the late 2015 sale date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $10,830,179 (i.e. $504.29/SF of building area). The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), zoning map, plat map, building sketches (by floor), land sales map, land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Marshall Valuation support, interior/exterior photographs, Sales Comparison grid, improved sales map, Income approach, subject's recent deed, CoStar write-up of the subject's recent bulk sale, improved sale photographs, CoStar sale write-ups, CoStar lease comparables, PAO' s summary chart (page 91) of various cap rates/vacancy rates/ rental rates, and Valbridge rental/vacancy retail & office rates by SW Florida submarket (year-end 2017), impact fee calculations & reconciliation of the approaches. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $450/SF, plus $444,829 of impact fees for a total of $11,679,529. The land value estimate was based upon 6 commercial land 'residual' indicators [i.e. from improved sales within blocks of the subject], with #1 ($537.05/SF) and #3 ($455.35/SF) being extremely close to the subject and very supportive of the $450/SF figure. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value [based upon 8/60 effective age/life] of the improvements ($1,830,379) & site improvements/paving at $73,624, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $13,584,000. I noted to the PAO at the hearing that the impact fees appear to be 'double counted', given the PAO is using a 'residual' technique from improved sales. 2018-00224 Page 2 of 6 However, the PAO could have also (and should have also) added the costs to achieve the current level of occupancy, entrepreneurial profit, land taxes during construction, and some minor soft costs that all would have offset (i.e. exceeded) the impact fees of $444,829. In future comments, I assume the impact fees already to be included in the PAO's base land value component, given the PAO uses 'residuals', which are improved sales with the improvement assessment portion deducted. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales from the subject's area. Sale 1 is 9 blocks south of the subject & closed in 1/2018, but very likely was under contract on the assessment date. The remaining 6 PAO sales are all located on the 5th Avenue corridor, all within blocks of the subject. Those 6 have sale dates between 2015 & 2017. Sales #3, 6, & 7 are the most similar in building size to the subject & they have $/adjusted SF indicators of $54 7 .85, $469. 76, & $506.89, respectively. The PAO concludes $550/SF of building area X 21,476 SF= $11,812,000 for the subject. The estimated price/ SF figure appears reasonable for the '5th Avenue South' location, based upon the sales provided. [ As I addressed in the hearing, the PAO mislabeled most of his improved sale photo captions.] In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $12,489,000 (rounded), based upon a $70/SF retail rate, $30/SF office rental rate, 5% vacancy, 20% expenses (i.e. $9.45/SF of adjusted area), and a loaded OAR of6.5% applied to the NOI of$811,771. The PAO provides rent comparables of both retail & office properties in the 5th Avenue South and 3rd Avenue South areas close to the subject. The PAO also provides general capitalization rate data from various sources. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area, but also by the supporting evidence and inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach. Given the subject's land component is substantial and very well supported, I give strong weight to the Cost Approach with emphasis on the land value. The improvements still do appear to offer substantial value. However, the land value equates to 103. 7% of the 2018 just value without even considering any extra benefit of the vertical improvements. The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing & did submit evidence (Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach) for consideration. The PET submitted a cover sheet (requesting a $8.04M just value, or $374.3 7 /adjusted SF). The subject's total assessment equates to $14/SF of the subject's "rentable" area, based upon 19,426 SF of NRA (net rentable area). A great deal of the PE T's evidence is based upon the rentable area. The PET's evidence notes the subject's 2018 assessment is 22% higher than its 2017 assessment. The PET's evidence also notes a physical occupancy of the subject of 50%, basically because the 1st floor was at 100°/o, yet the 2nd floor was totally vacant. The PET argues that among the bulk acquisition made by his client/owner of the subject, leasing has been much more difficult on the western end of the block (i.e. at and near the subject). The PET provides the subject's tax roll breakdown from the PAO's website, floor plans from the PAO, subject pictures, aerial photo, street map, Income Approach (both ''actual' & 'pro-forma'), discount for lease-up calculations ($444,282), income/ expense statement for year ending 12/31/2017, rent roll (as of 1/1/2018) showing the 2nd floor's 9,715 SF of rentable area 100% vacant, rosters of recently signed leases [1st floor 2018-00224 Page 3 of 6 vs. 2nd floor] in buildings owned by the PET in close proximity, comparable signed leases (2nd floor office space in other 5th A venue South buildings), Co Star lease comp detail sheets, Integra's 'Viewpoint' office 7 retail annual report articles with various charts/statistics, CBRE US Office statistics [ emphasis to South FL/Miami tier 1 ], CoStar' s SW FL Office Class A & B market stats for Naples, PwC Valuation Issues article, F.S. 193.011, DOR's Bulletin PTO 11-01, Collier County's DR-493, Sales Comparison Approach grid (3 sales), CoStar improved sale back-up, land sales grid (3 land sales), land sales back-up information. It is noted that while the PET does provide land sales information, the PET does NOT prepare a Cost Approach. It is also noted that the PET bases most of his presentation on the subject's 'rentable' area of 19,426 SF; whereas, the PAO bases his presentation of the subject's 'adjusted' building area of 21,476 SF. The PET does make a good point that the subject's building includes a non-subject component of residential condominium units that cloud the subject's redevelopment potential and exit strategy for a potential buyer or owner of the subject. I agree this is a good point, as it can impact the cap rate selection, as was noted by the PET. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET considers 2 versions. The first is the 'actual' income, based upon the 2017 year with either most (or all) of the 2nd floor office space vacant. While the 1/1/2018 rent roll indicates the 2nd floor was vacant at the beginning of 2018, it is not totally clear if the 12/31/2017 year-ending income had any 2nd floor office rental revenue. However, if so, it probably was relatively minor. The PET takes the actual revenue & expenses, then capitalizes ( using a 6% base cap rate) the loaded NOi into perpetuity, which essentially fails to consider the upside of leasing the 2nd floor. Therefore, I give no weight to the 'actual income' version provided by the PET. Next, the PET presents a pro-forma Income Approach. The PET projects RETAIL rents at $60/SF + $11.25/SF CAM, and OFFICE rents at $15/SF + $11.25/SF CAM. Total Expenses are projected at $10.49/SF (i.e. 695,781), resulting in NOi of $695,781, or $35.82/SF. The PET then applies a loaded OAR of 7.02% (6.0% + 1.0244%) for an initial value of $9,905,160, lease-up costs of $43,282 = $9,461,878. The PET then applies a 15% COS deduction for a figure of $8.04M, or $413.88/SF of RENT ABLE area. The PET's lease-up assumes it will take 2 years to lease up 8,744 SF and assumes $20/ SF for Tl's (tenant improvements). It is also based upon rent loss of $26.25/SF gross (which is consistent with his projected office rent of $15 + $11.25/SF CAM). Leasing commissions are based upon 6% of 5-year terms. The PET applies a discount rate of 8% (annual); thus, the NPV of the total rent loss each month equates to $443,282. In the PET' s Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides 3 improved sales. The first two sales appear to offer good comparability to the subject with $/Rentable SF indicators (after 15°/o COS) of $608 & $502. Both are on 5th Avenue South in the 600 & 800 blocks, respectively. The 3rd PET sale is in the 1000 block, and far less comparable (as the PET notes) with a $/rentable SF indicator of $303/SF. The PET gives weight to the average of all 3 of his indicators and uses $475/rentable SF X 19,426 SF, less lease-up costs $443,282, then concludes $8,780,000 (and the PET does not make a COS deduction in this approach). 2018-00224 Page 4 of 6 In the PET's land sales, the PET provides 3 land sales between May 2016 -November 2017 with 'D' zoning and prices that range from $114.78 -$123.89/SF. All are located on 5th A venue South in the 900 & 1000 blocks, which are non-comparable to the subject's prime location further west on 5th Avenue South. The PET concludes $105/SF (after COS adjustment, or a land value of$2,610,000. As stated earlier, the PET does not prepare a Cost Approach. I give no weight to the PET's land value estimate at this hearing. RULING: Based upon my review of the evidence, I give strongest consideration to the Income Approaches developed by both parties. One of the main differences of analysis is that the PET uses 'rentable' area, while the PAO uses the subject's 'adjusted' area. Generally speaking, leases are normally written on what the tenant actually uses; thus, the revenue is based upon the rental rate and that actual 'rentable' area. In multi-tenant properties, it usually creates an unrealistic distortion to use the 'adjusted' area, which normally is greater than the rentable area. Another issue worthy of consideration is the fact that the subject's land component is 'shared' with the condominium interests on the top floor. The subject property's redevelopment potential is somewhat clouded or hindered by the fact that there is not 100% ownership or control of the land. Thus, the PAO's land sales likely were overstated (to some extent), because negative adjustments were not applied to the comparable land 'residuals' that don't have that type of issue. Similarly, the same could be said for almost all the improved sales presented by both parties. I note the PAO did have one small sale that also had upper condos, but most of the sales did not have their land ownership interests separated like the subject. Another topic worthy of additional discussion relates to the overall capitalization rate selection. For one thing, the subject is mixed use (i.e. office & retail). This implies two different types of tenant categories and two types of expertise that not all investors have. The other issue that adds to risk (as previously mentioned) is the separation of the land's ownership with the condominiums. The PET's OAR is about a half percent higher than the PAO's OAR. I would agree 50 basis point increase in OAR is warranted for the mix of uses and the land ownership split that hinders any future owner of the subject from total redevelopment. Therefore, I am giving weight to two sets of issues: 1) the prior sale of the subject in late 2015 for $11,824,500, less 15% COS= $10,050,825. Many could argue the overall national & state economy has improved, yet some of the data presented by the PET suggests there has been a slight softening of conditions close to the subject, due to market resistance from tenants to sign leases at higher rates. 2) I give weight to the re- calculation of the PAO' s Income Approach using the RENT ABLE areas (instead of the adjusted areas of each floor), and also the loading of the OAR by another half of one percent for the additional risk. In addition, since the PAO did not do any lease-up calculations related to the vacant 2nd floor, I will also consider the PET' s lease-up costs of $443,282. However, I will not apply any COS consideration to the PAO's reconstructed approach. Therefore, the revised PAO Income Approach ( at $70/SF NRA & $30/SF NRA office), equates to PGI of $971,220, less 5% vacancy= EGI of $922.659. Expenses of 20% are deducted, resulting in a 7.0% OAR (not 6.5%) applied to the NOI of$738,127, resulting in a value of$10,544,674, less lease-up costs of$443,282 2018-00224 Page 5 of 6 = $10,101,000 (rounded). I reconcile that figure with the $10,050,825 from the prior (recent) sale in 2015, resulting in a reduced just value for 2018 of $10,076,000 (rounded). Thus, there is substantial credible evidence in the record that justifies a reduction. The PET overcame the PAO' s presumption of correctness. Relief is granted to $10,076,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00224: 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 overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2018-00224 Page 6 of 6 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00227 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 24830840005 Property address 1380 EMBASSY LN NAPLES, FL 34104 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 182,621.00 182,621.00 182,621.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 151,273.00 151,273.00 151,273.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 151,273.00 151,273.00 151,273.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/06/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axict] D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00227 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00227: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Nicholas Mau CCIM, who did appear at the hearing. The PET did not submit any evidence for this hearing. I asked the PET if he had any verbal testimony to refute the assessment and the PET indicated he did not. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase 'just value' has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professional accepted appraisal practices including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, laws of Florida (House bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. The PAO established a value fo the subject using mass appraisal standards at $182,621. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00227: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have evidence to submit at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00227 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00228 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 29280800001 Property 2521 VAN BUREN AVE address NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none Value from TRIM Notice 110,475.00 89,360.00 0.00 Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 110,475.00 89,360.00 0.00 After Board Action 110,475.00 89,360.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 89,360.00 89,360.00 89,360.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson 12/06/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Siqnature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00228 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00228: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Nicholas Mau CCIM, who did appear at the hearing. The PET did not submit any evidence for this hearing. I asked the PET if he had any verbal testimony to refute the assessment and the PET indicated he did not. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase 'just value' has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F .S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professional accepted appraisal practices including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, laws of Florida (House bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. The PAO established a value of the subject using mass appraisal standards at $110,475. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00228: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have evidence to submit at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00228 Page 2 of 2 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00229 Parcel ID 55851360009 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 222 1ST ST NAPLES, FL 34134 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 398,025.00 398,025.00 377,600.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 337,610.00 337,610.00 337,610.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 337,610.00 337,610.00 337,610.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/25/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00229 Page I of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00229: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Nicholas Mau CCIM, who did appear & submitted evidence for this hearing. Apparently, the subject was appealed in 2017 & was reduced. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a waterfront duplex with 1,469 SF of adjusted area. Apparently, each side is a 1 bed/I bath unit. The subject's address is 222 1st Street in Bonita Springs. The subject was built in 1963 and it is situated upon a site of 0.21 acres. The subject appears to have ample room to dock two boats, based upon the aerial photograph provided by the PAO. SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: There has not been a recent sale of the subject within three years. PAO TESTIMONY /EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $398,025. The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), color location map (aerial), building sketch, front photo, rear photo, dock/boat lift photo, land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Sales Comparison grid of 8 sales, improved sales/land sales map, Income Approach, improved sale photographs/floor plans. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $5, 100/LF X 75 FF = $351,900. The land value estimate was based upon 2 waterfront sites (land sales #1 & #2). Land Sale #2 ($5,449/FF) is the best of all land indicators, given it closed in December 2017 and because it has 75 FF (like the subject). Both land sales #1 & #2 are close to the subject. Land indicators #3 -#10 are 'residual' indicators, yet #3-#7 are on the water. #3 is also very close to the subject, yet #4 -#10 are all much further away. Impact fees were estimated at $22,536. The PAO does not provided any back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, nor does the PAO provided any impact fee calculations from a governmental source. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($69,585) & site improvements at $5,000, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $449,021. [As I noted at the hearing, the PAO had some minor depreciation factor errors associated with the residence and dock at the bottom of the Cost Approach exhibit on page 18]. Overall, the Cost Approach figures look very reasonable and lend support to the PAO's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 8 improved sales. Because sales #6, #7, and #8 are apparently on dry lots & much further away in terms of distance, I give them no weight or consideration. Sales # 1-#5 are all waterfront sales from 2017, they are more competitive. However, Sales #4 & #5 are 2-story buildings that are newer, and both have garages, thus, they both appear superior & not worthy of further consideration. Because Sale #2 appears to be a 'high sale' (and looks like a single-family home from its photo), I give its $615,000 sales price no weight. My focus is on Sale #1 with an adjusted price of $410,271 & PAO' s Sale #3 with an adjusted sales price of $473,717. The average of these two close sales is $441,994 X 85% COS= $375,695. I give strong weight to this figure, as it is derived from the most similar waterfront 2018-00229 Page 2 of 4 duplexes and both sold in the last 3 months of 2017. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $212,000 (rounded), based upon a $941. 79/unit/month rental rate, 29. 7% vacancy + expenses, and applying a loaded OAR of7.5% to the NOI of $15,881. The PAO does not provide any support for any of his inputs. I give no weight to this approach, given the lack of support for any inputs. Plus, most duplexes on the water are not usually purchased for their rental income. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by his presentation of his Cost Approach. Many of the PAO' s sales are less convincing, yet some sales do support the assessment. The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing & did submit evidence (Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach) for consideration. The PET submitted a cover sheet requesting a $270,000. The PET also submitted an aerial photograph, location map, PAO's subject summary from the county PAO's web site, photograph of the front yard, DR-493, DOR Bulletin PTO 11-01, and F.S. 193.011. In the PET' s Income Approach, the PET prepares a presentation that resulted in a value of $160,000, but then he indicated he was not relying on this approach, so I disregard it too. As I stated before, duplexes are generally not purchased for their rental income, particularly if they have some other benefit (like dockage, etc.). In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides 1 improved sale of a duplex across the street from the subject that sold in December 2016 for $399,000. The main problem with that sale is that it has a living area of 1,728, while the subject's living area is 1,075 SF. The sale comparable is adjusted downward by the PET to $274,000. The PET' s one sale does not make a market, but that larger sale does lead one to think the subject's value should be less than its $398,025 assessment. RULING: Based upon my review of the evidence, I give strongest consideration to the two waterfront duplex sales from 2017. PAO's Sales #1 & #3 offer the best comparability. The average of these two close sales is $441,994 X 85% COS= $375,695, or $377,600 (rounded). I give strong weight to this figure, as it is derived from the most similar waterfront duplexes and both sold in the last 3 months of 201 7. The PET's request for $270,000 appears excessively low; however, there is substantial credible evidence in the record that justifies a reduction. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness. Relief is granted to $377,600. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00229: 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 2018-00229 Page 3 of 4 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 overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2018-00229 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00237 Parcel ID 52505032327 Petitioner name TAXCUTS1, INC. Property 5057 MARTINIQUEDR The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 964,450.00 964,450.00 964,450.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 964,450.00 964,450.00 964,450.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 964,450.00 964,450.00 964,450.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/09/2018 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00237 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00237: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00237: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. In accordance with FAC 12D-9.021[8] which states [findings of fact], the Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO' s value is presumed correct. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00237: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-0023 7: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. In the instant matter, the Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. The relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. PAO's value of $964,450 is presumed correct. 2018-00237 Page 2 of 2 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00238 Parcel ID 68986771864 Petitioner name TAXCUTS1, INC. The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property 9286 MARBLE STONEDR address NAPLES, FL 34120 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,326,081.00 1,326,081.00 1,326,081.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,326,081.00 1,326,081.00 1,326,081.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,276,081.00 1,276,081.00 1,276,081.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.} Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [ZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/06/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00238 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00238: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00238: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The PAO provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $1,326,081. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b ), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00238 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F .S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00238 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00238: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00238: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $1,326,081 is presumed correct. 2018-00238 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00239 Parcel ID 57860440002 Petitioner name TAXCUTS1, INC. The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 782 ORCHIDCT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary [Z] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,793,512.00 1,793,512.00 1,793,512.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,789,493.00 1,789,493.00 1,789,493.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,739,493.00 1,739,493.00 1,739,493.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D 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 2018-00239 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00239: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00239: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The PAO provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $1,793,512. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO' s evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00239 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00239 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00239: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00239: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $1,793,512 is presumed correct. 2018-00239 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 IZ] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00241 Petitioner name MIKE BEAUCHAMP/ KE ANDREWS The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 20761240008 Property 1101 1 ST AVES address NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary IZ] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 544,647.00 544,647.00 544,647.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 439,754.00 439,754.00 439,754.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 439,754.00 439,754.00 439,754.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. IZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/09/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00241 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00241: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Mike Beauchamp) did not appear for this hearing; however, his office did submit an email stating, "I will not be able to attend the VAB hearings on Thursday, but do not wish to withdraw my petitions at this time." The PET did have evidence in the record, which will be considered and discussed in this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is vacant commercial land zoned "O-D". The PAO states this is the 'Office Downtown' classification; however, it still will allow residential uses. The site area is 18,113 SF. The subject has a street address of 1101 1st Avenue South in Naples. The subject is east ofTamiami Trail & west of Goodlette-Frank Road South. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the contested just value of $544,647. It is important to note that the subject recently sold in September 2015 for $675,000. The 2018 just value equates to 80. 7% of that purchase price, which is well below the normal 85% ratio the PAO could be assessing the subject, especially after more than two years of good market conditions. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF ($725,000. The land value estimate was based upon the 7 land sale indicators, with #1, 2, 3, & 6 all located very close to the subject. The six land sales form a reasonably tight range of $/SF indicators from $37.27-$55.54/SF. Sale #1 is the subject's prior sale in 2015. Sale #2 closed for $44.35/SF & it is next door to the subject. Overall, the PAO's estimate of value for the subject appears well within reason & highly supportive of the assessment. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good land value support. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating they are not withdrawing the petition. Therefore, I will consider the PET's evidence in the record. The PET's evidence was very simplistic and mainly consists of a cover sheet referencing a map, stating the owner believes a nearby (yet improved) property (highlighted in orange) has a land (portion) of their assessment at $22/SF, while the subject is at $30/SF. The purpose of this hearing is to address prevailing values in the market. While the PET appears to be attempting to contest comparable assessments, it is a harder case to prove the PAO is treating the subject in a different manner than those in the same class of property. The subject (vacant) is not in the same class as referenced by the PET's neighboring 'improved' property. The PET does not offer ANY sales whatsoever, or any current market information to refute the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. Furthermore, the PET fails to offer any evidence that the subject's prior sale was abnormal and not reflective of market conditions in late 2015. There does not appear to be any merit to the PET's argument related to just one property in close proximity to the subject. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & not founded on current market data. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach (which includes Sale #1 which his the subject's prior sale) is highly supportive of the assessment. 2018-00241 Page 2 of 3 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00241: 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. 2018-00241 Page 3 of 3 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00242 Parcel ID 20761840000 Petitioner name MIKE BEAUCHAMP/ KE ANDREWS Property 1080 1ST AVES The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,682,983.00 2,682,983.00 2,682,983.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,385,560.00 2,385,560.00 2,385,560.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,385,560.00 2,385,560.00 2,385,560.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/06/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Siqnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00242 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00242: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Mike Beauchamp) did not appear for this hearing; however, his office did submit an email stating, "I will not be able to attend the VAB hearings on Thursday, but do not wish to withdraw my petitions at this time." The PET did not have any evidence in the record for Petitions 242 & 243 that were heard together. RULING: The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase 'just value' has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professional accepted appraisal practices including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, laws of Florida (House bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. The PAO established a value of the subject using mass appraisal standards at $2,682,983. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit timely evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00242: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00242 Page 2 of 2 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final O 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00243 Parcel ID 20762400009 Petitioner name MIKE BEAUCHAMP/ KE ANDREWS The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 1080 1ST AVES NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition O Granted your petition O Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,600,706.00 1,600,706.00 1,600,706.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,170,423.00 1,170,423.00 1,170,423.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,170,423.00 1,170,423.00 1,170,423.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F .S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/06/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D 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 2018-00243 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00243: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Mike Beauchamp) did not appear for this hearing; however, his office did submit an email stating, "I will not be able to attend the VAB hearings on Thursday, but do not wish to withdraw my petitions at this time." The PET did not have any evidence in the record for Petitions 242 & 243 that were heard together. RULING: The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase 'just value' has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professional accepted appraisal practices including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, laws of Florida (House bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. The PAO established a value of the subject using mass appraisal standards at $1,600,706. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit timely evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00243: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00243 Page 2 of 2 Received On: 11/8/2018 3:36:43 PM Magistrates Worksheet II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. Petition No: 2018-00254 DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00254 Parcel ID 73537520006 Petitioner name BILL, GARY & KIMBERLEIGH The petitioner is: [l] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 1100 COLLIER BLVD MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 577,103.00 577,103.00 577,103.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 577,103.00 577,103.00 577,103.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 577,103.00 577,103.00 577,103.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00254 Page 1 of 4 Received On: 11/8/2018 3:36:43 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2018-00254 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00254: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00254: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Donald Wagner and Carla Legrow The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $577,103. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a condominium unit 1625at 1100 S Collier Blvd. As part of PAO's evidence, a 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Wagner presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00254 Page 2 of 4 Received On: 11/8/2018 3:36:43 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2018-00254 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00254 Page 3 of 4 Received On: 11/8/2018 3:36:43 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2018-00254 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00254: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00254 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO' s value of $5 77, 103 is presumed correct. 2018-00254 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00255 Petitioner name REED, CARL A The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record O taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 01831400001 Property 1756 3RD STS address NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025/10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,219,057.00 3,219,057.00 3,219,057.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,219,057.00 3,219,057.00 3,219,057.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,219,057.00 3,219,057.00 3,219,057.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier 11/14/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/16/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00255 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00255: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00255: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Carl Reed. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $3,219,057. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 1756 3rd Street South, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided evidence which included the sale of the property July 2018 for $3,237,500 which occurred in 2018 which is irrelevant as the date of valuation for tax purposes of January 1, 2018. The petitioner did not provide any credible market data to overcome the presumption of correctness and the appraiser did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase '~ust value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b ), F.A.C. 2018-00255 Page 2 of 4 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does 2018-00255 Page 3 of 4 not overcome the PAO's value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00255: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00255: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193 .011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $3,219,057 is presumed correct. 2018-00255 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00265 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 11180080007 Property 990 9TH STN address NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,168,004.00 3,168,004.00 3,168,004.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,040,874.00 3,040,874.00 3,040,874.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,040,874.00 3,040,874.00 3,040,874.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 10/22/2018 Date 10/29/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00265 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00265: FINDINGS OF FACT: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative or agent for the owner of the property, Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak from Paradigm Tax Group PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,168,004. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PET estimated value: $2,800,000. PAO described the property as a freestanding two story class C medical office building. The building contains 15,831-sf and the land size is 44,200-sf. The building was built in 2002. The property is located at 990 9th Street North, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard in 2018 only, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 2018-00265 Page 2 of 8 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 88 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, zoning map and sketch of the property, both site and building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and included land sales with a location map of the sales; and building cost estimates. The Sale Comparison Approach included comparable building sales with location map. The Income Approach included a proforma. PAO also provides PET's income analysis. The addenda contains the deed with legal description, supporting income data, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales, detailed analysis with photos of the comparable building sales and leases, and impact fees for the subject. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the city of Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from November 2012 to November 2017 with three sales having occurred in the year 2017. The land sales range in size from 18,113-sf to 116,127-sf; the sale price range is $37.27 to $119.50/sf. The 2017 sales range from $44.35 to $119.50/sf. The mean of all the sales is $55.57 /sf and the median is $44. 77 /sf. PAO reconciled at $50.00/sf or $2,210,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $3,511,997 and impact fees at $471,216, and the land value is estimated at $2,210,000 for a total cost of $6,193,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of office buildings. The sales occurred from June 2016 to December 2017. The sales range in building size from 5,790-sf to 30,044-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 13,500 to 84,835-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 12% to 34%. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2006. The sales range from $152.17 to $345.35/sf of building area including land. Sales 9 to 11 have a similar location to the subject, being located along or close to US-41; and are similar in building size. These 4 sales range from $232.99 to $245.30/sf of building area. All sales have a mean price of $235.30/sf of building area and a median price of $246.00/sf of building area. PAO reconciled a value at $240.00/sf of building area or $3,799,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO included 6 office asking rents located along US-41 and 3rd Street in close proximity to the subject. The asking rents range from 2018-00265 Page 3 of 8 $15.00 to $41.50/sftriple net with most of the asking rents being in the $20-$25/sfrange triple net. The space ranges from 907-sf to 20,979-sf. PAO provided rents from CoStar- market survey-located along Goodlette Frank Road and US-41; range in size from 5,238 to 60,552-sf. The reported rents range from $15 to $25/sf triple net. PAO also provided confidential rents compiled by their office. The leases were negotiated in the year 2017 and are located in Naples, Marco Island and Collier County. The space ranges from 1,771 to 32,550-sf; rents range from $5.97 to $46.08 with a mean of $19.26/sf. The rents included common area maintenance (CAM). PAO provided vacancy support for office space from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2017 and 4th Q 2017. Vacancies range from 2.80% to 8.3% with an average of 5.81 % Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates is 6.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 7%. PAO used a rental rate of$25.00/sffor an annual income of$395,775. PAO used a 7% vacancy rate or $27,704 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $368,071. Operating expenses were estimated at 20% of EGI or $73,614. The net operating income (NOI) is $294,457. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from information provided from CoStar and confidential information from PAO. These reports are dated throughout 2017. Co Star reports cap rates from 6.25% to 7 .4% with a mean of 7 .19% and a median of 6.87%. Confidential information from PAO indicates a cap rate range of 3 .90% to 7% with a mean of 6.15%.P AO used a cap rate of 8%. The NOI of $294,457 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of $3,681,000 rounded. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2018-00265 Page 4 of 8 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the fallowing manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -The PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income -PAO applied the Income Approach using current market rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent 2018-00265 Page 5 of 8 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PAO' s just value conclusion: $3,168,004. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 74-page report which consisted of a cover letter, property appraiser's printout of property summary and details of the property, building sketch, aerial photo. Comparable rental data with detailed sheets and photos of the rentals, capitalization rate data, Income analysis. Comparable sales chart with detailed information and photos on each sale. DR-493, Letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, PTO-11-01, 2017 Value Adjustment Board Training- Module 6. PET developed the Income Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was not included in this analysis. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided an Income Analysis. PET provided 4 rents from Loop Net a real estate market information report. The properties in this report are located along US-41 or just offUS-41. The asking rents range from $15.00 to $20.00/sftriple net; not including CAM; for space ranging from 1,025 to 28,605-sf. PET used a rent of $18.00/sftriple net. The gross rent is $284,958; Pet used a vacancy rate of 10% or $28,496 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $256,462. Operating expenses were estimated at 5 % ofEGI or $12,823. The net operating income (NOI) is $243,639. PET supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from market surveys by real estate companies such as: CRBE( a market survey report) which indicates cap rates for suburban office buildings, as of the 4th Q 2017 for Miami of 7.5% to 8.25%. PET used a cap rate of 7% and capitalized the NOI of $243,639 for an indicated value of $3,480,558, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $2,958,475. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach. PET included 5 sales of office buildings. The sales occurred in February 2017 and January 2018. The sales range from $540,000 to $11,000,000. The building area ranges from 3,664 to 57,756-sf and land area from 7,078 to 160,301-sf. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The indicated sale ranges from $96.00 to $198/sf and when adjusted for 15% cost of sales the indicated price range is $82.00 to $169.00/sfwith an average of$133.00/sf. PET estimated a value of $170.00/sf or $2,691,270. As rebuttal, PAO, indicated PET's comparable rents are located in inferior locations as compared to the subject and indicate lower rents. PET's comparable rent and sale# 4 (same property-Mustang Center) is located on the East Trail in an area inferior to the 2018-00265 Page 6 of 8 subject. The subject is located in a high traffic area that is fully developed; PET's sale and rent #4 is located in an area not fully developed where rents and land values are lower than at the subject. PAO indicated PET's Sale# 1 on Bayfront has a high vacancy and the quality of space is inferior. PAO indicated PET' s rents and sales are inferior to the subject. As rebuttal, PET indicated that some of PAO' s land sales are dated and not timely in today's market; also, the building is 16 years old and a cost approach is not appropriate. PET indicated PAO's comparable rents range from $15 to $25/sf and PAO used the high end of the range in their estimate, thus inflating value. PET indicated the average rent in Naples is about $21.00/sf. PAO's vacancy of7% is low, PET used 10% in this market. PET indicated the sale of the Mustang Center is located in a developed area. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. The subject is located along 9th A venue S (US-41) and is a major thoroughfare in close proximity to downtown Naples. PET used comparable rents and sales located in inferior locations. PAO used rents and sales of properties in close proximity to the subject or similar locations. PAO' s evidence was considered more credible and more relevant. PET's value is understated. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00265: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or 2018-00265 Page 7 of 8 B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. The subject is located along 9th Avenue S (US-41) and is a major thoroughfare in close proximity to downtown Naples. PET used comparable rents and sales located in inferior locations. PAO used rents and sales of properties in close proximity to the subject or similar locations. PAO' s evidence was considered more credible and more relevant. PET's value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00265 Page 8 of 8 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [Z] These actions are a recommendation only, not final 0 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00266 Parcel ID 11180480005 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address 955 1 OTHA VE N NAPLES, FL 34102 D other, explain: Decision Summary [Z] Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition 0 Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,350,777.00 3,350,777.00 3,350,777.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,219,956.00 3,219,956.00 3,219,956.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,219,956.00 3,219,956.00 3,219,956.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. IZ] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 10/22/2018 Date 10/29/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00266 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00266: FINDINGS OF FACT: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative or agent for the owner of the property, Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak from Paradigm Tax Group PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,350,777. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PET estimated value: $3,000,000. PAO described the property as a freestanding two story class C medical office building. The building contains 16,640-sf and the land size is 62,400-sf. The building was built in 1978. The property is located at 955 10th Street Avenue North, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard in 2018 only, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 V AB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 2018-00266 Page 2 of 8 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 84 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, zoning map and sketch of the property, both site and building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and included land sales with a location map of the sales; and building cost estimates. The Sale Comparison Approach included comparable building sales with location map. The Income Approach included a proforma. PAO also provides PET's income analysis. The addenda contains the deed with legal description, supporting income data, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales, detailed analysis with photos of the comparable building sales and comparable leases and impact fees for the subject. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO' s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the city of Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from November 2012 to November 2017 with three sales having occurred in the year 2017. The land sales range in size from 18,113-sfto 116,127-sf; the sale price range is $37.27 to $119.50/sf. The 2017 sales range from $44.35 to $119.50/sf. The mean of all the sales is $55.57/sfand the median is $44.77/sf. PAO reconciled at $45.00/sf or $2,808,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $913,593 and impact fees at $495,296, and the land value is estimated at $2,808,800 for a total cost of $4,217,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of office buildings. The sales occurred from June 2016 to December 2017. The sales range in building size from 5,790-sf to 30,044-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 13,500 to 84,835-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 12% to 34%. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2006. The sales range from $152.17 to $345.35/sf of building area including land. Sales # 8 to 11 have a similar location to the subject, being located along or close to US-41; these 4 sales are similar in building size. These 4 sales range from $232.99 to $245.30/sf of building area. All sales have a mean price of $235.30/sf of building area and a median price of $246.00/sf of building area. PAO reconciled a value at $240.00/sf of building area or $3,994,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO included 6 office asking rents located along US-41 and 3rd Street in close proximity to the subject. The asking rents range from 2018-00266 Page 3 of 8 $15.00 to $41.50/sftriple net with most of the asking rents being in the $20-$25/sf range, triple net. The space ranges from 907-sf to 20,979-sf. PAO provided rents from CoStar- market survey-located along Goodlette Frank Road and US-41; range in size from 5,238 to 60,552-sf. The reported rents range from $15 to $25/sf triple net. PAO also provided confidential rents compiled by their office. The leases were negotiated in the year 2017 and are located in Naples, Marco Island and Collier County. The space ranges from 1,771 to 32,550-sf; rents range from $5.97 to $46.08 with a mean of $19.26/sf. The rents included common area maintenance (CAM). PAO provided vacancy support for office space from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2017 and 4th Q 2017. Vacancies range from 2.80% to 8.3% with an average of 5.81 % Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates is 6.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 7%. PAO used a rental rate of$25.00/sf for an annual income of $416,000. PAO used a 7% vacancy rate or $29,210 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $386,880. Operating expenses were estimated at 20% of EGI or $77,376. The net operating income (NOI) is $309,504. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from information provided from CoStar and confidential information from PAO. These reports are dated throughout the year 2017. CoStar reports cap rates from 6.25% to 7 .4% with a mean of 7 .19% and a median of 6.87%. Confidential information from PAO indicates a cap rate range of 3.90% to 7% with a mean of 6.15%.PAO used a cap rate of 8%. The NOI of$309,504 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of $3,869,000 4 rounded. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2018-00266 Page 4 of 8 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraise·r must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -The PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); ( 4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income -PAO applied the Income Approach using current market rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent 2018-00266 Page 5 of 8 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PAO's just value conclusion: $3,350,777. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 74-page report which consisted of a cover letter, property appraiser's printout of property summary and details of the property, building sketch, aerial photo. Comparable rental data with detailed sheets and photos of the rentals, capitalization rate data, Income analysis. Comparable sales chart with detailed information and photos on each sale. DR-493, Letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, PTO-11-01, 2017 Value Adjustment Board Training- Module 6. PET developed the Income Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was not included in this analysis. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided an Income Analysis. PET provided 4 rents from Loop Net-real estate market information report. The properties are located along US-41 or just off US-41. The asking rents range from $15.00 to $20.00/sftriple net; not including CAM; for space ranging from 1,025 to 28,605-sf. PET used a rent of $18.00/sftriple net. The gross rent is $299,520; Pet used a vacancy rate of 10% or $29,952 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $269,568. Operating expenses were estimated at 5 % ofEGI or $13,478. The net operating income (NOI) is $256,090. PET supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from market surveys by real estate companies such as: CRBE( a market survey report) which indicates cap rates for suburban office buildings, as of the 4th Q 2017 for Miami of7 .5% to 8.25%. PET used a cap rate of 7% and capitalized the NOI of $256,090 for an indicated value of $3,658,423, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of$3,109,659. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach. PET included 5 sales of office buildings. The sales occurred in February 2017 and January 2018. The sales range from $540,000 to $11,000,000. The building area ranges from 3,664 to 57,756-sf and land area from 7,078 to 160,301-sf. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The indicated sale ranges from $96.00 to $198/sf and when adjusted for 15% cost of sales the indicated price range is $82.00 to $169.00/sfwith an average of $133.00/sf. PET estimated a value of $170.00/sf or $2,828,800. As rebuttal, PAO, indicated PET's comparable rents are located in inferior locations as compared to the subject and indicate lower rents. PET's comparable rent and sale# 4 (same property-Mustang Center) is located on the East Trail in an area inferior to the subject. The subject is located in a fully developed area; PET's sale and rent #4 is 2018-00266 Page 6 of 8 located in an area not fully developed where rents and land values are lower than at the subject. PAO indicated PET's Sale# 1 on Bayfront has a high vacancy and the quality of space is inferior. PAO indicated PET's rents and sales are inferior to the subject. As rebuttal, PET indicated that some of PAO' s land sales are dated and not timely in today's market; also, the building is 40 years old and a cost approach is not appropriate. PET indicated PAO's comparable rents range from $15 to $25/sfand PAO used the high end of the range in their estimate, thus inflating value. PET indicated the average rent in Naples is about $21.00/sf. PAO's vacancy of7% is low, PET used 10% in this market. PET indicated the sale of the Mustang Center is located in a developed area. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. The subject is located off 9th Avenue S (US-41), a major thoroughfare in a fully developed area. PET used comparable rents and sales located in inferior locations. PAO used rents and sales of properties in close proximity to the subject or similar locations. PAO's evidence was considered more credible and more relevant. PET's value is understated. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00266: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 2018-00266 Page 7 of 8 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. The subject is located off 9th A venue S (US-41 ), a major thoroughfare in a fully developed area. PET used comparable rents and sales located in inferior locations. PAO used rents and sales of properties in close proximity to the subject or similar locations. PAO's evidence was considered more credible and more relevant. PET's value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00266 Page 8 of 8 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00273 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 61943920008 Property address 4114 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,534,662.00 1,534,662.00 1,534,662.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,287,558.00 1,287,558.00 1,287,558.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,287,558.00 1,287,558.00 1,287,558.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/01/2018 Date 11/05/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 oarties 2018-00273 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00273: FINDINGS OF FACT: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative or agent for the owner of the property, Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak from Paradigm Tax Group PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,534,662. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PET estimated value: $1,176,199 to $1,221,199 PAO described the property as a freestanding fast food restaurant occupied by Wendy's. The building contains 2,729-sf and the land size is 39, 150-sf or .90 acres. The building was built in 1980. The property is located along a busy street in an active market area developed with restaurants, hotels and shopping. The property is located at 4114 Tamiami Trail North, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard in 2018 only, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at 2018-00273 Page 2 of 8 below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 48 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, zoning map and sketch of the property, both site and building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and included land sales with a location map of the sales; and building cost estimates. The Sale Comparison Approach included comparable building sales with location map. The Income Approach included a proforma. PAO also provides PET's income analysis. The addenda contains the deed with legal description, supporting income data, photos of the subject property, comparable building sales photos, impact fees and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the city of Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from November 2012 to November 2017 with three sales having occurred in the year 2017. The land sales range in size from 18,333-sfto 116,127-sf; the sale price range is $37.27 to $55.54/sf. The 2017 sales range from $44.35 to $55.54/sf. The mean of all the sales is $43 .80/sf and the median is $44.35/sf. PAO reconciled at $44.00/sf or $1,723,000. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $184,416 and impact fees at $292,365, and the land value is estimated at $1,722,600 for a total cost of $2,199,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of fast food and restaurant sales in Collier County. The sales occurred from March 2016 to March 2017. The sales range in building size from 993-sf to 8,765-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 10,000 to 67, 728-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 6.6% to 46.6%. The buildings were built from 1977 to 2017. The sales range from $289.02 to $1,092.55/sf of building area including land. The three most recent sales have a range of $289.02 to $768.67/sf of building area. Sale# 5, built in 1978, is located across the street from the subject and sold in August 2015 for $535.98/sf; this sale has a building area of 4,655-sf and a land size of 10,000-sf. All sales have a mean price of $620.98/sf of building area and a median price of $600.00/sf of building area. PAO reconciled a value at $610/sf of building area or $1,655,000 rounded. 2018-00273 Page 3 of 8 PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO included 5 actual lease comparables that were signed from December 2008 to April 2014. These leases are to Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. The building size ranges from 993-sf to 2322-sf; the rents range from $20.00 to $60.08/sf triple net (with no common area maintenance (CAM). PAO also included 8 confidential leases of fast food restaurants in Collier County. The leases were negotiated in the year 2017; the buildings range in size from 1,045-sfto 3,026-sf; the buildings were built from 1980 to 2016. The rent ranges from $6.67 to $91.19/sfwith a mean of $47.72/sftriple net (with no CAM). PAO used a rental rate of $45.00/sf. PAO used a rent of$45.00/sffor an annual income of $122,805. PAO used a 5% vacancy rate or $6,140 for an effective gross income (EGI) of$116,665. Operating expenses were estimated at 10% of EGI or $11,666. The net operating income (NOi) is $104,998. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from market data surveys: Calkain National and Net Lease Advisors/National for fast food restaurants. These surveys are dated from 2nd, 3rd and 4th Quarter 2017. These cap rates range from 4.21 % to 5.94% with an average of5.39%. PAO used a cap rate of6.5%. The NOi of $104,998 capitalizes at 6.5% indicates value of $1,615,000 rounded The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or 2018-00273 Page 4 of 8 assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -The PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income -PAO applied the Income Approach using current market rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PAO'sjust value conclusion: $1,534,662. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 26-page report which 2018-00273 Page 5 of 8 consisted of a cover letter, property appraiser's printout of property summary and details of the property, aerial photo, floor plan sketch, Income Approach summary, comparable sales summary, detailed analysis on the sale, DR-493, Letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, PTO-11-01, 2017 Value Adjustment Board Training-Module 6. PET developed the Income Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was not included in this analysis. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided an Income Analysis. PET does not provide supporting evidence for the income approach. PET used a rent of$35.00/sffor an annual income of$95,515. PET used a 5% vacancy rate or $4,776 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $90,739. Operating expenses were estimated at $4,537. The net operating income (NOi) is $86,202. PET used a cap rate of 6% and capitalized the NOi of $86,202 for an indicated value of$1,436,705, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $1,221,199. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach. PET used one sale of a vacant Burger King restaurant located at 103 Barfield Drive Marco Island FL, a distance away from the subject. The sale occurred in February 2018 for $1,450,000. The building has an area of 2,857-sf and land are of 18,295-sf; built in 1996. The sale price indicates $508.00/sf and when adjusted for 15% cost of sales the indicated price is $431.00/sf. The indicated value based on 2,7,29-sf at $431.00/sf is $1,176,199. PET estimated value: $1,176,199 to $1,221,199 As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET's sale is of a vacant Burger King and is essentially land value and that this property will most likely be redeveloped. PET' s sale is located at a distance from the subject and in a different market. PAO indicated most emphasis has been placed on the land value of this property due to the age of the building, built in 1980; the fact that the subject fast food restaurant has not been renovated in many years; and the neighboring properties are being bought with older buildings being torn down and redeveloped. PAO provided recent land sales in Naples to support the value and in the final analysis did not consider the current income of the property nor comparable sales of improved fast food restaurants. As rebuttal, PET indicated that a vacant restaurant is the best indicator of value due to the age and condition of the subject; also, the sale is not incombered with a lease. PET has a problem with PAO's value of the property being placed on the land value only as the property is currently occupied and doing business as a fast food restaurant. PAO did not consider the Income of the property nor comparable sales of fast food restaurants. PAO provided a land value based on the age and condition of the property; also, the neighboring properties are being bought with older buildings being tom down and redeveloped. PET does not provide supporting evidence for the Income approach. PET 2018-00273 Page 6 of 8 used one sale of a vacant fast food restaurant located at a distance from the subject in a different market area in establishing value. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00273: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PAO provided a land value based on the age and condition of the property; also, the neighboring properties are being bought with older buildings being torn down and redeveloped. PET does not provide supporting evidence for the Income approach. PET used one sale of a vacant fast food restaurant located at a distance from the subject in a different market area in establishing value. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable 2018-00273 Page 7 of 8 appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00273 Page 8 of 8 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00284 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 11430400007 Property 4 72 5TH A VE S address NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,479,938.00 3,479,938.00 3,479,938.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,479,938.00 3,479,938.00 3,479,938.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,479,938.00 3,479,938.00 3,479,938.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/22/2018 Date 10/29/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00284 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00284: FINDINGS OF FACT: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative or agent for the owner of the property, Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak from Paradigm Tax Group PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,479,938. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PET estimated value: $2,500,000. PAO described the property as a freestanding retail building. The building contains 3,520-sf and the land size is 9,425-sf. The building was built in 1959. The property is located along a busy street in downtown Naples. The property is located at 4 72 5th A venue South, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard in 2018 only, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at 2018-00284 Page 2 of 8 about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 53 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, zoning map and sketch of the property, both site and building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and included land sales with a location map of the sales; and building cost estimates. The Sale Comparison Approach included comparable building sales with location map. The Income Approach included a proforma. PAO also provides PET's income analysis. The addenda contains the deed with legal description, supporting income data, photos of the subject property, comparable building sales photos, detailed analysis with photos of the comparable land sales and impact fees for the subject. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 5 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the city of Naples and all sales are located along 5Th Avenue South in close proximity to the subject. The land sales occurred from April 2016 to June 2017. The land sales range in size from 6,885-sfto 17,274-sf; the sale price range is $395.87 to $644.65/ sf of land area. All the land sales were improved with older buildings, similar to the subject at time of sale, PAO extracted the depreciated improved value which ranges from $188,257 to $2,127,757, to arrive at the land value. PAO indicated older properties along 5th Avenue, the main street in downtown Naples, are being purchased for redevelopment. The subject property, Sale# 1, sold in June 2017 for $5,250,000. PAO extracted the depreciated building value of $188,257 for an estimated land value of$5,061,743 or $53 7 .05/sf of land area. PAO placed most emphasis on this sale in estimating value. The mean of all the sales is $533.59/sf and the median is $537.05/sf. PAO reconciled at $500.00/sf or $4,713,000. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $4,976 and impact fees at $72,909, the land value is estimated at $4,712,500 for a total cost of $4,790,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 sales of retail buildings. Sales # 1 to 5 are the same as PAO' s land sales previously analyzed and are all located along 5th A venue South in close proximity to the subject; sale # 6 is located just south on 12th Avenue off 3rd Street S., a similar location. The improved sales occurred from 2018-00284 Page 3 of 8 April 2016 to January 2018. The sales range in building size from 2,381-sfto 14,566-sf; the land size ranges from 6,885-sfto 17,274-sf. The sales range in price from $469.76 to $1,599.64/sf of building area. As previously mentioned the subject sold in June 2017 for $5,250,000 or $1,491.48/sf of building area. The sales have a mean price of $1,064.89/sf of building area and a median price of $1,140/sf of building area. PAO reconciled a value at $1, 100/sf of building area or $3,872,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO also included 8 leases of retail space along 5th A venue South. The leases were negotiated in the from May 2013 to October 2016 the rented space ranges in size from 893-sf to 5, 134-sf; the buildings were built from 1945 to 2013. The rent ranges from $30.00 to $75.00/sfwith a mean of $56.50/sftriple net (with no CAM). PAO used a rental rate of $60.00/sffor an annual income of $211,200. PAO used a 5% vacancy rate or $10,560 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $200,640. Operating expenses were estimated at 20% of EGI or $40,128. The net operating income (NOI) is $160,512. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from CoStar(a market survey report) with two sales on 5th Avenue South. The sales have a cap rate range of 5.3% to 6% with an average of 5.65%. PAO used a cap rate of6.5%. The NOI of $160,512capitalizes at 6.5% indicates value of $2,469,000 rounded The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative 2018-00284 Page 4 of 8 or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 I outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -The PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income -PAO applied the Income Approach using current market rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. 2018-00284 Page 5 of 8 PAO'sjust value conclusion: $3,479,938. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 48-page report which consisted of a cover letter, property appraiser's printout of property summary and details of the property, aerial photo, CoStar information sheet on the subject sale, photos of the subject, market information on rents, vacancy cap rates, Income Approach summary, comparable sales summary, detailed analysis on the comparable sales, DR-493, Letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, PTO-11-01, 2017 Value Adjustment Board Training-Module 6. PET developed the Income Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was not included in this analysis. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided an Income Analysis. PET's CoStar information indicates the subject was occupied at the time of sale and the vacancy was 3.8% for this market area. PAO presents information from REIS-a market survey-on rents for metro Naples that range from $16.48 to $25.70/sfwith an average of$22.19/sf and an asking rent distribution that ranges from $10.26 to $46.90/sf. Valbridge, another market survey indicates rents for Naples at $40.13/sf. PET used $40.00/sf for the subject or $140,800. REIS report indicates a vacancy rate range from 4.6% to 24.5% with an average of 12.9% and Val bridge indicates a vacancy rate of 1.1 % for this market area. PET used a vacancy rate of2.5% of gross income or $3,520 for an effective gross income (EGI) of$137,280. Operating expenses were estimated at $4,118. The net operating income (NOI) is $133,162. PET supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from market surveys by real estate companies such as: CRBE(a market survey report) which indicates cape rates for neighborhood/community centers, as of the second half of 2017 for Ft Lauderdale, Miami , West Palm Beach and Tampa of 6.25% to 8%, PWC-1st Q 2018-average rate is 6.36%, Stitus RERC investment survey 4Q 2017 has rates in Tampa pf 6.9%. PET used a cap rate of 5.5% and capitalized the NOI of$133,162 for an indicated value of $2,41, 120, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $2,057,952. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach. PET did not include the sale of the subject property in the analysis; PET indicated the purchaser approached the seller to buy the property and that the property was not exposed to the open market; therefore, not an arms-length sale. PET presented 2 sales along 5th Avenue S in close proximity to the subject. The sales occurred in December 2016 and January 2017. The sales range from $5,000,000 to $7,980,000. The building area ranges from 9,570 to 5, 751-sf and land area from 9,675 to 10,000-sf. The buildings were built in 1957 and 1999. The indicated sale ranges from $834 to $869/sf and when adjusted for 15% cost of sales the indicated price range is $709 to $739/sf. PET used $750/sf or $2,640,000. 2018-00284 Page 6 of 8 PET also included 2 sales on Broad Avenue S, located just south of the subject. These sales occurred in February 2017 and June 2017. The sales range from $2,600,000 to $2,850,000. The building area ranges from 2,817 to 3,000-sf and land area from 7,500 to 9 ,990-sf. The buildings were built in 1968 and 1969. The indicated sale ranges from $867 to $1,012/sfand when adjusted for 15% cost of sales the indicated price range is $737 to $860/sf. PET used $800/sffor a value of $2,816,000. PET estimated value range by Sales Comparison Approach is $2,640,000 to $2,816,000 As rebuttal, PAO, indicated the sale of the subject was an actual arms-length sale and a market transaction; PAO confirmed the sale with the seller. PAO placed most emphasis on the recent sale of the subject property in their analysis and on the value of the land only since the improvements are older. As rebuttal, PET indicated the sale of the subject was not a market sale. PET indicates rents along 5th Avenue South are in the $29 to $40.00/sfrange and that PAO's rent is high. Some of PAO' s sales are mixed use properties with retail on the main floor and office or residential on the upper levels and these sales are not comparable to the subject. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. PET did not take into consideration the actual sale of the subject in June 2017 for $5,250,000. This was a sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller. PAO placed most emphasis on this sale. PET' s value is understated. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00284: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption 2018-00284 Page 7 of 8 of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. PET did not take into consideration the actual sale of the subject in June 2017 for $5,250,000. This was a sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller. PAO placed most emphasis on this sale. PET' s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00284 Page 8 of 8 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00299 Parcel ID 76713000923 Petitioner name WHICKER, STEPHEN C Property The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address 3110 TERRAMARCT NAPLES, FL 34119 D other, explain: Decision Summary D Denied your petition [l] Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable Value from TRIM Notice 686,800.00 686,800.00 Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 686,800.00 686,800.00 After Board Action 525,100.00 525,100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none o.oo 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 686,800.00 636,800.00 475,100.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00299: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. The petitioner's evidence overcame the presumption correctness of the PAO. SM recommends the petition be granted with a revised new just value of $525,100. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/09/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi~ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00299 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00299: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00299: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Stephen Whicker. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $686,800. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 3110 Terramar Court, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria and accepted appraisal practices and established the presumption of correctness. The PET, when presenting their evidence has overcome the PA O's presumption of correctness with the evidence submitted. The evidence included; the purchase of the property November 2017 for $525,100. He explained the selling price which is lower than typical in the development was a reflection of the poor condition of the property. The main contention of the PET is that the fact that this property was purchased in an non-arm's length bank sale for $525,100 exposed to the open market in local multiple listing service. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, 2018-00299 Page 2 of 4 the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F .S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. The SM did consider the PAO's and PET's evidence and is in agreement that the property sale of $525,100 was credible, did support and overcome the presumption of correctness. The PET' s evidence is considered credible and supportive of a value change. Special Magistrate has determined that PET' s value is correct. PAO did not support the value. PAO Presumption of Correctness has been overcome by a preponderance of the PET's evidence. (Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one 2018-00299 Page 3 of 4 of the parties. PET' s value is determined by the evidence to be correct. 2018-00299 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00300 Parcel ID 37446440006 Petitioner name ROBERT PEYTON The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [ll taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 1440 16THAVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 444,497.00 444,497.00 444,497.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 444,497.00 444,497.00 444,497.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 444,497.00 444,497.00 444,497.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. IZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00300 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00300: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00300: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $444,497. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase '~ust value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00300 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F. S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00300 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00300: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00300 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $444,497 is presumed correct. 2018-00300 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00301 Petitioner name ROBERT PEYTON The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 51392520001 Property 1937 PRINCESSCT address NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 359,255.00 359,255.00 359,255.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 359,255.00 359,255.00 359,255.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 359,255.00 359,255.00 359,255.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 Signature, VAS 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axice D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAS clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00301 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00301: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00301: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $359,255. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase 'just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00301 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00301 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00301: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00301 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $359,255 is presumed correct. 2018-00301 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00302 Petitioner name ROBERT PEYTON The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 36457320006 Property address 3185 54THLNSW NAPLES, FL 34116 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 221,988.00 221,988.00 221,988.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 193,558.00 193,558.00 193,558.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 193,558.00 193,558.00 193,558.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00302 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00302: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00302: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $221,988. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO' s report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b ), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00302 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO' s value is presumed correct. PA 0 considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00302 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00302: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00302 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of$221,988 is presumed correct. 2018-00302 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00303 Petitioner name ROBERT PEYTON The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 36616200006 Property address 4240 1ST AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34119 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 490,597.00 490,597.00 490,597.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 490,597.00 490,597.00 490,597.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 490,597.00 490,597.00 490,597.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axictJ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision SiQnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00303 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00303: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00303: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $490,597. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO' s evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00303 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00303 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00303: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00303 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of$490,597 is presumed correct. 2018-00303 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00304 Petitioner name ROBERT PEYTON The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 37495120005 Property 44110THAVE NE address NAPLES, FL 34120 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 478,191.00 478,191.00 478,191.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 478,191.00 478,191.00 478,191.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 478,191.00 478,191.00 478,191.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 oarties 2018-00304 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00304: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00304: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $478,191. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00304 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO' s value is presumed correct. PA 0 considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00304 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00304: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00304 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of$478,191 is presumed correct. 2018-00304 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00305 Petitioner name ROBERT PEYTON The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 62265560006 Property 5426 TRAMMELLST address NAPLES, FL 34113 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 201,672.00 201,672.00 201,672.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 201,672.00 201,672.00 201,672.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 201,672.00 201,672.00 201,672.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) ReasonsforDec~ion Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00305 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00305: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00305: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $201,672. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO' s report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00305 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00305 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00305: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00305 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $201,672 is presumed correct. 2018-00305 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00306 Petitioner name ROBERT PEYTON The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 82534640006 Property address 67JOHNNYCAKEDR NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 348,130.00 348,130.00 348,130.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 348,130.00 348,130.00 348,130.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 348,130.00 348,130.00 348,130.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/02/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi~ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision SiQnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00306 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00306: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00306: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $348,130. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of sales of properties sold in the area which were placed on a grid however no explanation for how a determination of value was derived. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner's agent showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2018-00306 Page 2 of 4 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00306 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00306: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00306 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of$348,130 is presumed correct. 2018-00306 Page 4 of 4 1 2 ! • 1i I 5 FLORJDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C . Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036 , 194 .171 (2), 196 .151 , and 197.2425 , Florida Statutes .) Petition # 2018-00327 Parcel ID 85000503470 Petitioner name RONALD RODRIGUEZ Property 6325 NAPLESBLVD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent address NAPLES , FL 34109 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9 .025(10), F.A.C . 1. Just value , required 784 ,988 .00 784 ,988 .00 784 ,988 .00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 784 ,988 .00 784 ,988 .00 784 ,988 .00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 25 ,000.00 25 ,000 .00 25 ,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 759 ,988 .00 759 ,988 .00 759 ,988 .00 *All values entered should be county taxable values . School and other ta xing author ity 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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations . Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/16/2018 Signature , special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel , Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel , Clerk 12/18/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https ://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00 32 7 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00327: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00327: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives : Robert Sandy, Emilio Rodriguez , Dan DeMorett and PAO attorney J. Christopher Woolsey . This hearing is a continuation from an original hearing held 10/16/2018 in which T\the Petitioner did not show to the hearing , however did provide evidence for the SM review. The Petitioner did not show to this hearing , however did provide additional information for the SM review. The information provided did not show good cause. Petitioner failed to overcome the P AO's presumption of correctness because the evidence did not provide market supported data or analysis or sufficient analysis which led to SM's recommendation to deny the appeal The PAO did provide additional evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in . SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $784 ,988. The TRIM value has not changed. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value , the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00327: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00327 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $784 ,988 is presumed correct. Petitioner failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness which led to SM's recommendation to deny the appeal. 2018-00327 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00348 Parcel ID 14100080000 Petitioner name KAPLER 111, A WILLIAM, JULIE ANN KAPLEg Property 4O4THAVE S The petitioner is: [l] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 7,250,275.00 6,925,651.00 6,925,651.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,250,275.00 6,925,651.00 6,925,651.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,200,275.00 6,875,651.00 6,875,651.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision SiQnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00348 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00348: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was the owners of the property, Mr. William Kapler III and Mrs. Julie Ann Kapler. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $6,925,651. The TRIM value has changed from $7,250,275. PAO described the property as a three-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,94 7-sf and an adjusted building size of 7 ,260-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .26 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 115 ft. The property was built in 2016. The property is located at 40 4th Avenue South, Naples FL. PAO provides for all petitions, The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report, that contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 40 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions 2018-00348 Page 2 of 7 and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, photographs and aerial of the subject and location maps. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales and impact fees. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from April 2017 to July 2017. The adjusted front footage (FF) for the sales ranges from 87 .40 ft to 108.6 ft; the sale price range for these sales are $32,282 to $40,943/FF. PAO reconciled at $33,600/FF or $3,864,000. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total building cost is estimated at $3,351,451; the impact fees are estimated at $30,073; the site improvements are estimated at $75,000; the land value is estimated at $3,864,000 for a total cost of $7,320,524. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 8 improved sales, all located in close proximity to subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2017 to November 2017. The sales range in adjusted building size from 2,031-sfto 8,056-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 65.5 FF to 199.83 FF. The buildings were built from 1940 to 2017; all buildings, except one, were built after the year 2000. The sales range in price/sf from $979.00 to $1,290.00/sf of building area including land with an average of $1,07 4/sf, and a median of $1,060/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1,060/sf of building area (7,260-sf) including land or $7,696,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $6,925,651. PET's evidence was a 30-page report which consists of the contract to build the subject, aerial of neighborhood with Zill ow values, photo of pool storage area, comparable improved sales in chart form. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET believes the value of the property should be the sum of the building cost new of $2,852,855 and the land cost purchase of $2,682,669 for a total of $5,535,524. PET provided 8 sales of improved properties. PET did not provide the date of sale; some of the sales provided are PAO's sales and some sales PET has added. The sales range from $4,600,000 to $9,800,000 and range in size from 4,701-sf to 7,785-sf; the adjusted price ranges from $590.88 to 1,372.05/sf of building area including land. PET made no 2018-00348 Page 3 of 7 adjustments to the sales. PET indicated they agree with PAO's improvement value, however, disagree with PAO's land value of $3,864,000, established by PAO in the Cost Approach. PET disagrees with the method used by PAO in arriving at the land value. PAO applies a depth factor, which is the ratio of the estimated front-foot value of a lot of more or less than standard depth to the estimated front-foot value of a lot of standard size. PET indicated the lot should be valued based on the square footage of the lot and not the front foot with a depth factor applied. PET estimated the land only at $2,794,274. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule l 2D-9 .025 (I), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.01 I. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. I 93.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521 ), and Section 193.011, F .S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 I outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.30 I, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject 2018-00348 Page 4 of 7 utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated depth tables vary for residential and commercial uses and the depth tables are used in the valuation of all residential properties in Collier County. PAO estimated the land value fairly and in the same manner as all residential properties are estimated in Collier County. PET's concern was with PAO's land value and the method used by PAO in arriving at the land value. PAO explained the method used, by PAO, throughout Collier County, in valuing residential land. PET did not provide adequate evidence of the land value from comparable sales. The subject property is new construction and when a building is new, the Cost Approach is used in estimating value; the Cost Approach separates the value of the land and building components. The estimated value by the Cost Approach typically supports the value derived from the Sales Comparison Approach of the entire property, where similar improved sales in the area of the subject are compared. Where comparable sales are found, typically less weight is placed on the Cost Approach. A typical purchaser does not buy a property based on the cost to develop the property; typical 2018-00348 Page 5 of 7 purchasers buy property based on the recent sales of comparable properties in the neighborhood. PAO derived the value by both approaches. The just value being addressed in this petition is the value of the entire property (land and building); PAO provided support for the value conclusion. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00348: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET's concern was with PAO's land value and the method used by PAO in arriving at the land value. PAO explained the method used, by PAO, throughout Collier County, in valuing residential land. PET did not provide adequate evidence of the land value from comparable sales. The subject property is new construction and when a building is new, the Cost Approach is used in estimating value; the Cost Approach separates the value of the land and building components. The estimated value by the Cost Approach typically supports the value derived from the Sales Comparison Approach of the entire property, where similar improved sales in the area of the subject are compared. Where comparable sales are found, typically less weight is placed on the Cost Approach. A typical purchaser does not buy a property based on the cost to develop the property; typical purchasers buy property based on the recent sales of comparable properties in the 2018-00348 Page 6 of 7 neighborhood. PAO derived the value by both approaches. The just value being addressed in this petition is the value of the entire property (land and building); PAO provided support for the value conclusion. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00348 Page 7 of 7 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00350 Petitioner name TAX RECOURSE, LLC The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 21961000254 Property address 2511 PINE RIDGERD NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,119,157.00 3,119,157.00 3,119,157.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,119,157.00 3,119,157.00 3,119,157.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,119,157.00 3,119,157.00 3,119,157.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson 11/15/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2018 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 infonnation, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00350 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00350: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Tax Recourse) did not appear for this hearing; however, Lindsey Goodliffe from their office did submit an email requesting their evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2015. The subject's address is 2511 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. The adjusted building area is 14,389 SF situated upon a site of 84,071 SF (i.e. 1.93 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject recently sold on 2/23/2016 for $9.lM as a leased fee transaction. The 2018 assessment equates to 34.3% of that recent sales price; however, it is not given any weight because of the influence of the net lease arrangement that influenced the purchase price. The subject is assessed on a 'fee simple' basis, per FL law. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,119,157, or $216.77/SF of adjusted building area. As with all V AB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from various sources. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $26/SF, plus $179,745 of impact fees for a total of $2,365,591 (which is 74.2% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators, with #3, 4, 6 & 7 close to the subject. Land Sale 9 is the subject's land sale back in 2015 for $29.74/SF. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,751,878) & site improvements/paving at $85,600, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $4,203,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. Sale #9 is the subject's prior sale for $9.lM in 2016, yet it is not given any weight because of the influence of the lease affecting the price. Sale #2 is a CVS leased fee sale in Ft. Myers that is also not given any consideration for the same reason. The 7 remaining sales have $/SF indicators that range from $235.42-$494.66/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #4 ($351.56/SF), which is now a City Mattress store on Tamiami Trail North with a building size of 12,800 SF (similar to the subject's size). The PAO concludes $340/SF X 14,389 SF= $4,892,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of7.5% to NOi of$291,377 for a value indication of $3,885,000, or $270/SF. Six of the PAO rent comps are much smaller 2018-00350 Page 2 of 5 than the subject's space. The PAO's rental data generally suggest a lower rental rate for the subject, ye the PAO does have 1 $30/SF drug store rent comp listed as 'confidential' at the bottom of the chart in their survey on page 78 of their evidence. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better date presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating they would like their evidence to be considered. The PET submitted the subject's evidence (97 pages plus a separate package of 44 pages) in a confusing manner by including it with evidence from other hearings. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide evidence in an organized and logical/convincing manner for consideration, and not to have the magistrate try to determine which evidence is for which hearing out of many pages pertaining to multiple petitions. The PET provides a Cost Approach, roster of comparable sales [not really an approach], & an Income Approach in evidence. A long roster of sales and a long roster of rents are also presented. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,660,546 but has one substantial error by not providing market-oriented support for land value. The PET appears to have just used the PAO's allocated/administrative land value [$1,261,050 or $15/SF) in the assessment, which is not proper methodology for this hearing. The PET also fails to include impact fees ($179,745 justified by the PAO's evidence), site work ($85,600 used by the PAO), soft costs, land taxes during construction, and entrepreneurial profit. Using the PET's Cost Approach conclusion of $2,660,546 and just adding impact fees, site work, and moderate 15% entrepreneurial profit on the depreciated improvement value of $1,399,496, the resulting figure would be $3,135,815. That figure actually supports the PAO's assessment of$3,119,157. The PET's failure to provide market-oriented land value support is a major deficiency relating to H&BU, and not consistent with the 8 Criteria. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET' s Cost Approach, but if it had been better prepared to include some of the other relevant costs [ even without a higher land value], it would then appear to be supportive of the PAO's assessment. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $17.50/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$2,731,991 (before any COS deduction). The PET does not provide a cap rate survey, yet a limited portion of the sales write-ups in CoStar refer to cap rates for specific transactions (and often CoStar verifications are incorrect). The PET includes a roster of drug store ( and former CVS & W algreens) rents across the State of Florida. While the roster is long, there is only one rent from Collier County and no rents on the roster from neighboring Lee County. Another issue with the roster of leases is the 'lease sign date', which dates back as far as 1994. A strong argument could be made that many of the counties on the roster are substantially inferior to Collier County, yet some rents perhaps do offer some degree of comparability in some respects. Because the PET did not attend the hearing to answer questions, the PET' s data set gives the impression of being weighted toward many inferior market areas; thus, the PET's Income Approach conclusion may be slightly lower than it should be. 2018-00350 Page 3 of 5 The PET includes a long roster of improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County. The PET does not appear to conclude any value via 'comparable sales'; thus, it is difficult for me to conclude agree or disagree with the PE T's position. All of the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO's assessment, but many of the sales were built in the 1990's while the subject was built in 2015. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) on non-Collier market data. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PET' s Income Approach conclusion of $2,731,991, less the PAO' s supported land + impact fees of $2,365,591 equates to an implied building contribution by the PET of $366,400, or $25.46/SF of building area for a structure just 3 years old. This does not appear to make sense, given neither party to the hearing makes a claim of external or functional obsolescence associated with the subject. Thus, the two [ of 3] approaches that resulted in a value indication by the PET appear to be 'low'. While the PAO's presentation may have some minor deficiencies of support, the PAO' s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value+ impact fees that (combined) equate to 75.8% of the total assessment contested for this 3-year old building. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00350: 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 2018-00350 Page 4 of 5 appraisal should be upheld. 2018-00350 Page 5 of 5 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00351 Parcel ID 11280040002 Petitioner name TAX RECOURSE, LLC Property 2200 9TH STN The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,440,526.00 4,440,526.00 4,440,526.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,069,373.00 4,069,373.00 4,069,373.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,069,373.00 4,069,373.00 4,069,373.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/10/2018 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision SiQnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00351 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00351: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Tax Recourse) did not appear for this hearing; however, Lindsey Goodliffe from their office did submit an email requesting their evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2009. The subject's address is 2200 9th Street North (Tamiami Trail North) in Naples. The adjusted building area is 16,414 SF situated upon a site of 92,922 SF (i.e. 2.13 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in 2005 for $6.71M as a leased fee transaction. The 2018 assessment equates to 66.3% of that old/prior sales price; however, it is not given any weight because of the influence of the net lease arrangement that influenced the purchase price. The subject is assessed on a 'fee simple' basis, per FL law. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of $4,440,526, or $270.53/SF of adjusted building area. As with all V AB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from various sources. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $45/SF, plus $194,996 of impact fees for a total of $4,376,486 (which is 98.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators, with #1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 8 close to the subject. The land value appears very well supported by those sales in close proximity. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Tamiami Trail North. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,846,414) & site improvements/paving at $119,416, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $6,342,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. Sale #9 is the subject of petition 2018-350's prior leased fee sale for $9.lM in 2016, yet it is not given any weight because of the influence of the lease affecting the price. Sale #2 is a CVS leased fee sale in Ft. Myers that is also not given any consideration for the same reason. The 7 remaining sales have $/SF indicators that range from $235.42-$494.66/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #4 ($351.56/ SF), which is now a City Mattress store on Tamiami Trail North with a building size of 12,800 SF (similar to the subject's size). The PAO concludes $340/SF X 16,414 SF= $5,581,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. 2018-00351 Page 2 of 4 In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $32/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7 .5% to NOI of $354,542 for a value indication of $4,727,000, or $287.99/SF. Six of the PAO rent comps are much smaller than the subject's space. The PAO's rental data generally suggest a lower rental rate for the subject, yet the PAO does have 1 $30/SF drug store rent comp listed as 'confidential' at the bottom of the chart in their survey on page 7 4 of their evidence. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value+ impact fees equal 98.6% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a fairly modern building constructed in 2009 in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating they would like their evidence to be considered. The PET submitted the subject's evidence (97 pages plus a separate package of 44 pages) in a confusing manner by including it with evidence from other hearings. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide evidence in an organized and logical/convincing manner for consideration, and not to have the magistrate try to determine which evidence is for which hearing out of many pages pertaining to multiple petitions. The PET provides a Cost Approach, roster of comparable sales [not really an approach], & an Income Approach in evidence. A long roster of sales and a long roster of rents are also presented. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $3,284,309 but has one substantial error by not providing market-oriented support for land value. The PET appears to have just used the PAO's allocated/administrative land value [$1,858,440 or $20/SF) in the assessment, which is not proper methodology for this hearing. The PET also fails to include impact fees ($194,996 justified by the PAO's evidence), site work ($119,416 used by the PAO), soft costs, land taxes during construction, and entrepreneurial profit. The PET's failure to provide market-oriented land value support is a major deficiency relating to H&BU, and not consistent with the 8 Criteria. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, but if it had been better prepared to include some of the other relevant costs, it would then appear to be supportive of the PAO's assessment. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $18.00/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 8.0%. The PET concludes a value of $3,006,634 (before any COS deduction). The PET does not provide a cap rate survey, yet a limited portion of the sales write-ups in CoStar refer to cap rates for specific transactions (and often CoStar verifications are incorrect). The PET includes a roster of drug store (and former CVS & Walgreens) rents all across the State of Florida. While the roster is long, there is only one rent from Collier County and no rents on the roster from neighboring Lee County. Another issue with the roster of leases is the 'lease sign date', which dates back as far as 1994. A strong argument could be made that many of the counties on the roster are substantially inferior to Collier County, yet some rents perhaps do offer some degree of comparability in some respects. Because the PET did not attend the hearing to answer questions, the PET' s data set gives the impression of being weighted toward many inferior market areas; thus, the PET's Income Approach conclusion appears to be lower than it should be. 2018-00351 Page 3 of 4 COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County. The PET does not appear to conclude any value via 'comparable sales'; thus, it is difficult for me to conclude agree or disagree with the PET's position. All of the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO' s assessment, but many of the sales were built in the 1990's while the subject was built in 2009. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) on non-Collier market data. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. This is a major problem with a location like the subject's, given it fronts Tamiami Trail North. The PET's Income Approach & Cost Approach conclusions are both less than the PAO's well-supported land value+ impact fees. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees 'run with the land'. While the PAO' s Income presentation may have some minor deficiencies of support, the PAO's assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value+ impact fees that (combined) equate to 98.6% of the total assessment contested for this 9-year old building. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00351: 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. 2018-00351 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00352 Parcel ID 66263000027 Petitioner name TAX RECOURSE, LLC The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 15295 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34119 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,540,131.00 2,540,131.00 2,540,131.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,304,590.00 2,304,590.00 2,304,590.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,304,590.00 2,304,590.00 2,304,590.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi~ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00352 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00352: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Tax Recourse) did not appear for this hearing; however, Lindsey Goodliffe from their office did submit an email requesting their evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2002. The subject's address is 15295 Collier Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 14,066 SF situated upon a site of 66,211.20 SF (i.e. 1.52 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold as vacant land in 2001. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$2,540,131, or $180.59/SF of adjusted building area. As with all V AB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from various sources. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $30/SF, plus $179,367 of impact fees for a total of $2,165703 (which is 85.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 7 commercial land sale indicators, with # 1, 2, 3, & 7 being close to the subject. The land value appears very well supported by those sales in close proximity and they all have the same zoning. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at the SE quadrant of the lighted Collier Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,287,050) & site improvements/paving at $38,599, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $3,491,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. Sale #9 is the subject of petition 2018-350's prior leased fee sale for $9.lM in 2016, yet it is not given any weight because of the influence of the lease affecting the price. Sale #2 is a CVS leased fee sale in Ft. Myers that is also not given any consideration for the same reason. The 7 remaining sales have $/SF indicators that range from $235.42-$494.66/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #4 ($351.56/ SF), which is now a City Mattress store on Tamiami Trail North with a building size of 12,800 SF (similar to the subject's size). The PAO concludes $340/SF X 14,066 SF= $4,782,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $28/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of $265,847 for a value indication of $3,545,000, or $252.03/SF. Six of the PAO rent comps are much smaller than the subject's space. The PAO's rental data generally suggest a lower rental rate for the subject, yet the PAO does have 1 $30/SF drug store rent comp listed as 2018-00352 Page 2 of 4 'confidential' at the bottom of the chart in their survey on page 78 of their evidence. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value+ impact fees equal 85.3% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a fairly modem building constructed in 2002 in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating they would like their evidence to be considered. The PET submitted the subject's evidence (97 pages plus a separate package of 44 pages) in a confusing manner by including it with evidence from other hearings. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide evidence in an organized and logical/convincing manner for consideration, and not to have the magistrate try to determine which evidence is for which hearing out of many pages pertaining to multiple petitions. The PET provides a Cost Approach, roster of comparable sales [not really an approach], & an Income Approach in evidence. A long roster of rents is also presented. Back-up for many of the sales & rents is also provided. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,071,062 but has one substantial error by not providing market-oriented support for land value. The PET appears to have just used the PAO's allocated/administrative land value [$1,059,379 or $16/SF) in the assessment, which is not proper methodology for this hearing. The PET also fails to include impact fees ($179,367 justified by the PAO's evidence), paving ($38,599 used by the PAO), soft costs, land taxes during construction, and entrepreneurial profit. The PET's failure to provide market-oriented land value support is a major deficiency relating to H&BU, and not consistent with the 8 Criteria. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, but if it had been better prepared to include some of the other relevant costs, it would then appear to be supportive of the PAO' s assessment. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $15.00/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 8.0%. The PET concludes a value of $2,139,790 (before any COS deduction). The PET does not provide a cap rate survey, yet a limited portion of the sales write-ups in CoStar refer to cap rates for specific transactions (and often CoStar verifications are incorrect). The PET includes a roster of drug store ( and former CVS & W algreens) rents all across the State of Florida. While the roster is long, there is only one rent from Collier County and no rents on the roster from neighboring Lee County. Another issue with the roster of leases is the 'lease sign date', which dates back as far as 1994. A strong argument could be made that many of the counties on the roster are substantially inferior to Collier County, yet some rents perhaps do offer some degree of comparability in some respects. Because the PET did not attend the hearing to answer questions, the PET' s data set gives the impression of being weighted toward many inferior market areas; thus, the PET's Income Approach conclusion appears to be lower than it should be. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County. The PET does not appear to conclude any value via 'comparable sales'; thus, it is difficult for me to conclusively agree or disagree with the PET's position. All of the sales across the State selected by the 2018-00352 Page 3 of 4 PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO' s assessment, but many of the sales were built in the 1990's while the subject was built in 2002. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) on non-Collier market data. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. This is a major problem with a location like the subject's, given it fronts a major lighted traffic intersection. The PET' s Income Approach & Cost Approach conclusion is less than the PAO's well-supported land value+ impact fees. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees 'run with the land'. While the PAO's Income presentation may have some minor deficiencies of support, the PAO's assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value+ impact fees that (combined) equate to 85.3% of the total assessment contested for this 16-year old building. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00352: 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. 2018-00352 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00353 Parcel ID 56930880001 Petitioner name TAX RECOURSE, LLC The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property 1100 COLLIER BLVD address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary [lJ Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,920,549.00 2,920,549.00 2,920,549.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,768,470.00 2,768,470.00 2,768,470.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,768,470.00 2,768,470.00 2,768,470.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axic:0 D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision SiQnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00353 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00353: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Tax Recourse) did not appear for this hearing; however, Lindsey Goodliffe from their office did submit an email requesting their evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2000. The subject's address is 1100 North Collier Boulevard on Marco Island. The adjusted building area is 15,861 SF situated upon a site of 75,089 SF, or 1. 72 acres. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2012 for $5.7M, but that was a leased fee sale. The subject is assessed on a fee simple basis, per FL law. The current just value equates to 51.2% of that prior leased fee sales price. PAO TESTIMONY /EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$2,920,549, or $184.13/SF of adjusted building area. As with all V AB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from various sources. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $35/SF, plus $188,426 of impact fees for a total of $2,816,550 (which is 96.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 5 commercial land sale indicators ( all on Marco Island), with #2, 3, 4 & 5 being close to the subject. Three of the sales closed in 2017, while the other 2 closed in 2016. The land value appears well supported, as 4 of the 5 sales also have the same C-4 zoning as the subject. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,347,004) & site improvements/paving at $38,599, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $4,202,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 11 sales. Sale #1 is the only sale located on Marco Island. It closed in 2017 for $352/SF. Sale #3 is a CVS leased fee [high] sale in Ft. Myers that is not given any consideration. Sale # 10 is the subject of Petition 2018-350, & it is also a leased fee [high] sale given no weight. I give no weight to Sale # 11 (2,857 SF on Marco) because it is such a small building. The 7 remaining sales have $/SF indicators that range from $235.42-$494.66/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #5 ($351.56/SF), which is now a City Mattress store on Tamiami Trail North with a building size of 12,800 SF (similar to the subject's size). The PAO concludes $340/SF X 15,861 SF= $5,393,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss 2018-00353 Page 2 of 5 at 10%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7 .5% to NOi of $267,654 for a value indication of $3,569,000, or $225.02/SF. Six of the PAO rent comps are much smaller than the subject's space. The PAO's rental data mainly consists of much smaller spaces in multi-tenant buildings on Marco Island, yet the PAO does have 1 $30/SF drug store rent comp listed as 'confidential' at the bottom of the chart in their survey on page 83 of their evidence. It is noted that the subject space is all on the ground level & the subject has a comer site facing a busy intersection with a traffic light. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value+ impact fees equal 96.4% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a fairly modern building constructed in 2000 in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating they would like their evidence to be considered. The PET submitted the subject's evidence (97 pages plus a separate package of 44 pages) in a confusing manner by including it with evidence from other hearings. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide evidence in an organized and logical/convincing manner for consideration, and not to have the magistrate try to determine which evidence is for which hearing out of many pages pertaining to multiple petitions. The PET provides a Cost Approach, roster of comparable sales [not really an approach], & an Income Approach in evidence. A long roster of rents is also presented. Back-up for many of the sales & rents is also provided. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,920,549 but has one substantial error by not providing market-oriented support for land value. The PET appears to have just used the PAO's allocated/administrative land value [$1,059,379 or $16/SF) in the assessment, which is not proper methodology for this hearing. The PET also fails to include impact fees ($179,367 justified by the PAO's evidence), paving ($38,599 used by the PAO), soft costs, land taxes during construction, and entrepreneurial profit. The PET's failure to provide market-oriented land value support is a major deficiency relating to H&BU, and not consistent with the 8 Criteria. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, but if it had been better prepared to include some of the other relevant costs, it would then appear to be supportive of the PAO' s assessment. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $14.75/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 8.0%. The PET concludes a value of $2,371,814 (before any COS deduction). The PET does not provide a cap rate survey, yet a limited portion of the sales write-ups in CoStar refer to cap rates for specific transactions (and often CoStar verifications are incorrect). The PET includes a roster of drug store (and former CVS & Walgreens) rents all across the State of Florida. While the roster is long, there is only one rent from Collier County and no rents on the roster from neighboring Lee County. Another issue with the roster of leases is the 'lease sign date', which dates back as far as 1994. A strong argument could be made that many of the counties on the roster are substantially inferior to Collier County, yet some rents perhaps do offer some degree of comparability in some respects. Because the PET did not attend the hearing to answer questions, the PET' s data set gives the impression of 2018-00353 Page 3 of 5 being weighted toward many inferior market areas; thus, the PET's Income Approach conclusion appears to be lower than it should be. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County. The PET does not appear to conclude any value via 'comparable sales'; thus, it is difficult for me to conclusively agree or disagree with the PET's position. All of the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO's assessment. RULING: The PET' s presentation is extremely weak and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) on non-Collier market data. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. This is a major problem with a location like the subject's, given it fronts a major lighted traffic intersection. The PET's Income Approach & Cost Approach conclusions are both less than the PAO's well-supported land value+ impact fees of $2,816,550. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees 'run with the land'. While the PAO's Income presentation may have some deficiencies of support, the PAO's assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that ( combined) equate to 96.4% of the total assessment contested for this 18-year old building. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO' s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00353: 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 2018-00353 Page 4 of 5 appraisal should be upheld. 2018-00353 Page 5 of 5 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00354 Parcel ID 60204200442 Petitioner name TAX RECOURSE, LLC The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property 7485 VANDERBILT BEACHRD address NAPLES, FL 34119 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,168,052.00 1,168,052.00 1,168,052.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,168,052.00 1,168,052.00 1,168,052.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,168,052.00 1,168,052.00 1,168,052.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00354 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00354: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Tax Recourse) did not appear for this hearing; however, Lindsey Goodliffe from their office did submit an email requesting their evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding professional office building (a dental office) that was once a bank branch. The subject was built in 2006. The subject's address is 7485 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Naples. The adjusted building area is 3,981 SF situated upon a site of 43,560 SF, or 1 acre. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in late 2012 for $956,000. Six years have transpired of improving market conditions since the sale date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of $1,168,052, or $293 .41/SF of adjusted building area. As with all V AB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, deed for the prior sale, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/ back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. Charts are also provided related to office cap & rental rates from various sources. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $26/SF, plus $82,791 of impact fees for a total of $1,215,351 ( which is 104 % of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators that closed during 2017. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($559,302) & site improvements/paving at $65,650, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $1,840,000 to support the subject's assessment of $1,168,052. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 11 sales that closed between 6/2014 and 12/201 7. The $/SF indicators from the sales range from 262-$621/ SF. The sizes of the building sales appear highly comparable to the subject's size. Many of the sales are either banks, or former banks (like the subject). The PAO concludes $405/SF X 3,981 SF= $1,612,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 7%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8% to NOI of $94,409 for a value indication of $1,180,000, or $296.41/SF. Many of the PAO's rent comps are much smaller than the subject's space, yet the PAO does have a rental survey (from various sources and brokerage firms) that provide data for the subject's market area. It is noted that the subject space is all on the ground level & the subject has frontage along Vanderbilt Beach Road. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. The subject is a single-user building & very often attractive to an owner-user more than a 2018-00354 Page 2 of 4 buyer purchasing strictly for cash flow. In fact, the well supported land value+ impact fees equal 104% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a fairly modern building constructed in 2006 in place. Because the subject is now a dental office, it likely has additional expensive medical build-out features. The former bank drive-in canopy also remains in place that could be used for limited parking in the shade. Overall, the PAO has established the presumption of correctness with his presentation. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating they would like their evidence considered. The PET submitted the subject's evidence (97 pages plus a separate package of 44 pages) in a confusing manner by including it with evidence from other hearings. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide evidence in an organized and logical/convincing manner for consideration, and not to have the magistrate try to determine which evidence is for which hearing out of many pages pertaining to multiple petitions. The PET provides a Cost Approach, roster of comparable sales [not really an approach], & an Income Approach in evidence. A long roster of rents is also presented. Back-up for many of the sales & rents is also provided. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $1,023,351 but has one substantial error by not providing market-oriented support for land value. The PET does not appear to have used the PAO's allocated/administrative land value of $969,960, but rather uses a figure of $609,840 from an unknown source. This is not proper methodology for this hearing, as land value should be market-derived. The PET also fails to include impact fees ($82,791) justified by the PAO's evidence), paving ($65,650 used by the PAO), soft costs, land taxes during construction, and entrepreneurial profit. The PET's failure to provide market-oriented land value support is a major deficiency relating to H&BU, and not consistent with the 8 Criteria. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, but if it had been better prepared to include some of the other relevant costs, it would then appear to be supportive of the PAO's assessment. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $25/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 8.0%. The PET concludes a value of $1,017,643 (before any COS deduction). The PET does not provide a cap rate survey, yet a limited portion of the sales write-ups in Co Star refer to cap rates for specific transactions (and often CoStar verifications are incorrect). COMPARABLE SALES: I am not exactly sure which sales data the PET wants to use for this hearing, given multiple data packages were in evidence. The PET includes a long roster of improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County in the roster. The PET does not appear to conclude any value via 'comparable sales'; thus, it is difficult for me to conclusively agree or disagree with the PET's position. All the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO' s assessment. There are some medical office building sales from Co Star in evidence. One is a 5/2018 single-user sale that is not timely for consideration. Some of the medical sales are multi-tenant, while the subject is a single-user building. One sale (in 2016) is a medical office condo on the 3rd floor, which is not as comparable to the subject's single-story and single-user building design. Some of the sales are from 2015; 2018-00354 Page 3 of 4 thus, getting too old to use when more recent sales likely are available. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & confusing. The PET's evidence is all combined for multiple hearings to the extent that I am uncertain as to which evidence pertains specifically to this hearing. The PET did not attend the hearing to answer any questions. It is the PET's responsibility to provide organized evidence properly presented specific to this hearing so that it can be understood & analyzed. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. This is a major problem with a location like the subject's, given it fronts a major road. The PET's Income Approach & Cost Approach conclusions are both less than the PAO's reasonably well-supported land value+ impact fees that total $1,215,351. The underlying land value is the basic building block ofH&BU, and the impact fees 'run with the land'. The building appears to be in good condition and relatively modem (given it was built in 2006); thus, it should still contribute significantly above and beyond the land value + impact fees. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00354: 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. 2018-00354 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12O-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00355 Parcel ID 31240000020 Petitioner name TAX RECOURSE, LLC Property 12260 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 D other, explain: Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 378,000.00 378,000.00 378,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 378,000.00 378,000.00 378,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 378,000.00 378,000.00 378,000.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00355 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00355: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner, Mr. Jack Redding, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Tax Recourse) did not appear for this hearing; however, Lindsey Goodliffe from their office did submit an email requesting their evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a professional office condominium unit in the Equestrian Professional Center. The subject is in a complex of multiple buildings, and the subject's unit #101 is in a building that happens to be facing East Tamiami Trail. The subject's address is 12260 Tamiami Trail East. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the contested just value of $378,000, or $140/SF (based upon 2,700 SF). The PAO did provide the deed for the prior sale of the subject on 5/11/2012 for $600,000. The 2018 just value equates to 63% of that purchase price five & a half years prior to the assessment date. The PAO' s evidence included a table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, an aerial photograph ( showing the location of the sale comps), close aerial of the subject's development, site plan, tax roll screen shots, front photographs, grid of comparable sales, back-up data/photos/building sketches for each of the improved comparables, subject/comp location street map, Equestrian Center's master building card/condo declaration, condo permits, Income Approach, and lease comparable back-up data. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales & 1 listing (adjacent to the subject's unit & in the same building) all of similar vintage. The best comparable is in fact the adjacent listing [ described as 'Comp 9'] to the subject's unit for $225/SF, which eventually sold in 4/2018 ( after the assessment date) for $205/SF. Coconut Place (Comp 1) is also given significance, given it is so close to the subject in the East Trail area and its 3,720 SF sold for $168/SF. The balance of the PAO's sale comps are located further NW, yet all their sales prices range from $154-$194/SF. Based upon the photographs & supporting evidence for the PAO's sales, the comparable properties offer good substitute purchases sufficiently comparable to the subject. Overall, the PAO provides a very good presentation of the comparables to support the assessment. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $17 /SF gross (it includes a $4 CAM), vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.5% to NOi of$33,048 for a value indication of$388,800, or $144/SF. Because of office condos are often purchased for owner-occupancy ( and not necessarily just for their rental income), I give secondary weight to the Income Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating they would like their evidence to be considered. The PET submitted the subject's evidence in a very confusing manner by including it with evidence from 5 other hearings. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide evidence in an organized and logical/convincing manner for consideration, and not to have the magistrate try to determine which evidence is for which hearing out of a 44-page submittal. This is unprofessional for a firm specializing in representing property owners in V AB hearings. 2018-00355 Page 2 of 4 The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject that concludes a value of $286,752 yet does not include a land value. Typically, a Cost Approach is not performed for an office condo, as the land is a common element of the association. I give no weight to the PET' s Cost Approach. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $11/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 8.5%. The PET concludes a value of $281,372 (before any COS deduction). Much of the PE T's lease data appears to have lease dates signed well after ( or years before) the assessment date; thus, those circumstances are less relevant for consideration. Some of the lease data is 2nd floor space (not relevant to the subject's 1st floor location) and 20+ miles from the subject. The PET's Income Approach is not well supported. The PET seems to include some sales. The sale at 4330 Tamiami Trail East has a CoStar page that clearly states it is a 'non-arm's length' sale in 12/2016; thus, it is not considered. The PET includes a sale in the Mustang center that closed in 7/2017 for $96.15/SF, which appears to be a very low sale but it was for 39,003 SF, which is not comparable to the subject size of 2,700 SF. There is a 7/2018 sale in the Moorings Professional Building that sold in 7/2018, which is well beyond the assessment date & not worth of consideration. I give no weight to any of the PET's sales data. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & not founded on very good market data. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach is highly supportive of the assessment. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00355: 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 2018-00355 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00355 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12O-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00362 Parcel ID 56797400006 Petitioner name 166 STILLWATER LLC The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property 166 STILLWATERCT address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 805,442.00 805,442.00 805,442.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 755,656.00 755,656.00 755,656.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 755,656.00 755,656.00 755,656.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/06/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00362 Pagel of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00362: The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Staruch, Ms. Gregar, & Ms. Blaje. The PET was represented by Larry & Susan Boudreau. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they do not need to testify or present evidence at this hearing. The Petitioner (PET)did not submit any evidence into the record in advance of the hearing in a timely manner. The PAO did send a letter specifically requesting evidence. The PET wanted to introduce evidence at the hearing; however, the PAO objected strongly to the late evidence. Therefore, I also rejected the PET's late evidence for consideration. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase 'just value' has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professional accepted appraisal practices including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, laws of Florida (House bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. The PAO established a value of the subject using mass appraisal standards at $805,442. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit timely evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness. The PAO' s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00362: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner's evidence cannot be introduced because said evidence was specifically requested of the Petitioner in writing by the Property Appraiser's Office and the Petitioner had said evidence and refused to provide said evidence to the Property Appraiser's Office. Since the Petiitoner has no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petiitoner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00362 Page 2 of 2 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00364 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 13032320004 Property address 3170 CRAYTON RD NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,813,935.00 2,813,935.00 2,700,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,813,935.00 2,813,935.00 2,700,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,813,935.00 2,813,935.00 2,700,000.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F .S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00364 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00364: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,813,935. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,973-sf and an adjusted building size of 4, 73 7-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .41 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 116.5 ft. The property was built in 2014. The property sold in March 2017 for $2,700,000. The property is located at 3170 Crayton Road, Naples FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment ofup to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 50 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions 2018-00364 Page 2 of 6 and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, photographs and aerial of the subject and location maps. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, the property record card and impact fees. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 5 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from February 2017 to October 201 7. The front footage (FF) for the sales ranges from 92.85 ft to 137.78 ft; the sale price range is $6,876 to $12,694/FF. PAO reconciled at $9,848/FF or $1,147,234. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total building cost is estimated at $1,966,747; the impact fees are estimated at $27,929; the site improvements are estimated at $25,000; the land value is estimated at $1,147,234 for a total cost of$3,166,910. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 13 improved sales, all located in close proximity to subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2017 to August 2017. The sales range in adjusted building size from 3,220-sfto 5,613-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 92 FF to 116.3 FF. The buildings were built from 2008 to 2017. The sales range from $570.00 to $796.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $686.00/sf of building area or $3,250,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $2,813,935. PET's evidence was a 57-page report which consists of a cover letter, Bulletin: PTO 11-01 Florida Statute 193, advisory memo from Florida Department of Revenue, Bulletin: PTO 09-27, DR-493 form, letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, property record card, settlement statement for the sale of the property, comparable sales chart, MLS listing sheets for the subject and comparable sales and various property record cards of properties in subject neighborhood. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2017 to July 2017. The sales range in building size from 3,766-sfto 5,200-sf; PET used a building size of 4,212-sf which is the under-air area. The land size for these sales ranges from 12, 197-sf to 14,810-sf acres; the subject has 17,859-sf of land. The buildings were built from 2007 to 2017. The indicated 2018-00364 Page 3 of 6 value range is $2,145,500 to $2,922,000. Sale #5 is on the same street as the subject; is an older home similar in size to the subject; the adjusted price is $2,289,500. Sale # 4 is similar in age to the subject and the adjusted price is $2,544,500. PET indicates a value of $2,700,000 less 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of $2,295,000. PET estimated value: $2,295,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January I of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 I outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use 2018-00364 Page 4 of 6 of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's Sales# 1 and 4 are coastal design properties and newer homes. The age of three of PET's sale are older than the subject. PAO indicated the property was listed for $3,299,000 and sold for $2,700,000 and that the buyer got a good buy. PAO indicated values are not declining in this neighborhood. As rebuttal, PET indicated the adjustments for age to PAO's sales are inconsistent and inflate the value of the property. The property was for sale on MLS and was on the market for sale for 228 days. PET indicated the sale of the subject property is the best indicator of value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. 2018-00364 Page 5 of 6 The sale of the subject property took place in March 2017 and is a market sale. Most emphasis has be placed on this sale in estimating value. SM recommends the petition be approved at the sale price of $2,700,000. PAO does not deduct for cost of sales as previously mentioned. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00364: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) The sale of the subject property took place in March 2017 and is a market sale. Most emphasis has be placed on this sale in estimating value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $2,700,000. 2018-00364 Page 6 of 6 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00366 Parcel ID 68300003668 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD Property The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address 167 SUNSETCAY NAPLES, FL 34114 D other, explain: Decision Summary D Denied your petition [ll Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 241,200.00 241,200.00 140,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 241,200.00 241,200.00 140,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 241,200.00 241,200.00 140,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 10/29/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Si!lnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00366 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00366: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $241,200. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property a vacant, canal water front lot, with direct access to the Gulf of Mexico. The site size has an adjusted front foot (FF) of 134 ft and an area of 14,462 +/-sf.The site is zoned residential. The site sold in February 2018 for $140,000. The property is located at 167 Sunset Cay, Naples FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 25 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning and aerial photograph of the subject. PAO developed Sales Comparison Approach only, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, and 2018-00366 Page 2 of 6 the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 4 land sales. The land sales occurred from April 2017 to September 2017. All sales are located in the same area of the subject. The land sales were analyzed on a price per front foot (FF); the sales range in size from 87.50 FF to 130.00 FF. Comparable# 1, located next door to the subject, has FF of 124.00 ft and sold in September 2017 for $1,129/FF. Sale# 2 is a similar lot located on a point that sold in April 2017 for $1,923/FF. The adjusted sales range from $1,120 to $1,923 /FF. PAO reconciled at $1,825/FF or $245,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $241,200. PET's evidence was a 19-page report which consisted of a cover letter, Bulletin: PTO 11-01, Florida Statute 193, advisory memo from Florida Department of Revenue, Bulletin: PTO 09-27, DR-493 form, Collier County property summary card, aerial of the subject, comparable sales with aerial photos. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 3 land sales, which are also the same as PAO' s Sales # 1,3 and 4. The land sales occurred from June 2017 to September 2017. The sales range in size from 87.50 FF to 124.00 FF. Comparable# 1 is located next door to the subject, has FF of 124.00 ft and sold in September 2017 for $1,129/FF. The adjusted sales range from $1,120 to $1,342 /FF. PET reconciled at $1,045/FF or $140,000 rounded. PET estimated value: $140,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc.v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the 2018-00366 Page 3 of 6 evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO did not develop the Cost Approach; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for vacant land; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment 2018-00366 Page 4 of 6 was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated Sale# 1 located next door to the subject has limited amount of frontage for a dock. The sister lot, Sale# 2 recently sold for $250,000. PAO indicated the subject was originally listed for sale at $275,000 and sold for $140,000; a difference of $135,000. As rebuttal, PET indicated the sale next door to the subject is the best comparable and is supported by his sales. PET indicated the sale of the subject occurred in February 2018, and typically properties are put under contract 30-60 days prior to the sale. PET indicated the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET based the value on the recent sale of the subject property which was listed on MLS and exposed on the open market for a reasonable period of time. The value is supported by the recent sale of the adjoining property. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at the sale price of the property at $140,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00366: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. 2018-00366 Page 5 of 6 In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) PET based the value on the recent sale of the subject property which was listed on MLS and exposed on the open market for a reasonable period of time. The value is supported by the recent sale of the adjoining property. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $140,000. 2018-00366 Page 6 of 6 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00367 Parcel ID 58043440006 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD Property 740 AUSTINCT The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary D Denied your petition [l] Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 792,740.00 792,740.00 720,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 792,740.00 792,740.00 720,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 792,740.00 792,740.00 720,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 10/29/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Siqnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00367 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00367: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $792,740. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,243-sf and an adjusted building size of 2,611-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .28 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 112.13 ft. The property was built in 1980 and had an effective age of 1980. The property is an inside point water lot with direct access (no bridges) to the Gulf of Mexico. The property sold in April 2017 for $720,000. The property is located at 740 Austin Court, Marco Island FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2018-00367 Page 2 of 6 PAO, presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, photographs and aerial of the subject and location maps. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, the property record card and impact fees. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 4 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from February 201 7 to October 2017. The front footage (FF) for the sales ranges from 100 ft to 122.16ft; the sale price range is $7,756 to $8,466/FF. Sale# 4 is located next door to the subject, this property sold for $8,186/FF and has 122.16 FF. The site is larger than the subject and has better views. PAO reconciled at $7,040/FF or $789,395. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total building cost is estimated at $151,356, the land value is estimated at $789,395 for a total cost of $940,751. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 improved sales. The sales occurred from April 2017 to July 2017. The sales range in adjusted building size from 2,045-sfto 2,859-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 100 FF to 136.89 FF. The buildings were built from 1979 to 1989. The sales range from $276.00 to $386.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $341.00/sf of building area or $890,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $792,740. PET's evidence was a 34-page report which consists of a cover letter, Bulletin: PTO 11-01 Florida Statute 193, advisory memo from Florida Department of Revenue, Bulletin: PTO 09-27, DR-493 form, letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, property record card, cost of renovations completed after January 2018, MLS listing for the subject and comparable sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 4 improved sales with details of the sales. The sales occurred from March 2017 to July 2017. The sales range in building size from 1,697-sf to 2,250-sf; PET used a building size of 2,245-sf which is the under-air area. The land size for these sales ranges from .20 acres to .35 acres; the 2018-00367 Page 3 of 6 subject has .25 acres of land. The buildings were built from 1988 to 2001. PET indicates a value of $860,000 less 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of $720,000. PET estimated value: $720,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule l 2D-9 .025 (1 ), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F .S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2018-00367 Page 4 of 6 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated two of PET's sales are located in an area with a fixed bridge, the subject has no bridges to the Gulf. As rebuttal, PET indicated the property needed repairs that were made after the sale in the amount of $137,000. The property needed a new roof after hurricane Irma. Pet indicated the property was listed and on the market for 102 days and was not a short sale. PET indicated the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. The sale of the subject property took place in April 2017 and is a market sale. Most emphasis has be placed on this sale in estimating value. 2018-00367 Page 5 of 6 SM recommends the petition be approved at the sale price of $720,000. PAO does not deduct for cost of sales as previously mentioned. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00367: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) The sale of the subject property took place in April 2017 and is a market sale. Most emphasis has be placed on this sale in estimating value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $720,000. 2018-00367 Page 6 of 6 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00369 Parcel ID 57397680005 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property 969 JOY CIR address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary D Denied your petition [ll Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 982,063.00 982,063.00 860,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 982,063.00 982,063.00 860,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 982,063.00 982,063.00 860,000.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/29/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00369 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00369: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $982,063. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,24 7-sf and an adjusted building size of 2,840-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .33 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 106.37 ft. The property was built in 1999 and has been remodeled, the effective age is 2010. The property has water frontage on a large canal with ample dock frontage and a wide canal view. The property sold in January 2017 for $860,000. The property is located at 969 South Joy Circle, Marco Island FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 V AB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2018-00369 Page 2 of 6 PAO, presented a report containing 39 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, photographs and aerial of the subject and location maps. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, the property record card and impact fees. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 5 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to June 2017. The front footage (FF) for the sales ranges from 80ft to 114.3ft; the sale price range is $4,643 to $8,452/FF. PAO reconciled at $6,240/FF or $663,749. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total building cost is estimated at $415,834, impact fees were estimated at $27,511, the site improvements were estimated at $10,000, the land value is estimated at $663,749 for a total cost of $1,117,094. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 improved sales; all sales have fixed bridge access similar to the subject. The sales occurred from January 2017 to December 2017. The sales range in adjusted building size from 2,634-sf to 3,850-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 80FF to 149 .43 FF. The front footage (FF) along the waterfront for these sales ranges from 80ft to 140 ft. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2006. The sales range from $303.00 to $458.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $383.00/sf of building area or $1,088,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $982,063. PET's evidence was a 57-page report which consists of a cover letter, Bulletin: PTO 11-01 Florida Statute 193, advisory memo from Florida Department of Revenue, Bulletin: PTO 09-27, DR-493 form, letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, property record card, comparable sales chart, MLS listing for the subject and comparable sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales. The sales occurred from December 2016 to December 2017. The sales range in building size from 1,570-sf to 2,644-sf; PET used a building size of 2,24 7-sf which is the under-air area. The land size for these sales ranges from 8,712-sfto 16,552-sf; the subject has 14,374-sf 2018-00369 Page 3 of 6 of land; the FF water frontage for the sales ranges from 80 ft to 200 ft. The buildings were built from 1989 to 2008. The adjusted range in value is $702,250 to $903,375. PET indicates a value of $860,000 less 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of $731,000 PET estimated value: $731,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 I outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; 2018-00369 Page 4 of 6 (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's improved sale# 1, which is located next door to the subject, was a distress sale; the property had been listed for $900,000 and dropped to $685,000 for a quick sale. PET's sale# 2 was a short sale and not a qualified sale. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO' s adjustments to the sales were not consistent; indicating no adjustments were made for difference in frontage footage (FF). PAO used sales with larger buildings, PET used similar building sizes in his analysis and placed most weight on the sale of the subject, which is a January 2017 sale. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. The sale of the subject property took place in January 2017 and is a market sale. Most 2018-00369 Page 5 of 6 emphasis has be placed on this sale in estimating value. SM recommends the petition be approved at the sale price of $860,000. PAO does not deduct for cost of sales as previously mentioned. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00369: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) The sale of the subject property took place in January 2017 and is a market sale. Most emphasis has be placed on this sale in estimating value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $860,000. 2018-00369 Page 6 of 6 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00371 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 62571400009 Property address 697 109TH AVE N NAPLES, FL 34108 Decision Summary D Denied your petition [ll Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable Value from TRIM Notice 358,774.00 358,774.00 Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 358,774.00 358,774.00 After Board Action 286,000.00 286,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none o.oo o.oo o.oo 4. Taxable value,* required 358,774.00 358,774.00 286,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 10/29/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00371 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00371: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $358,774. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 1,212-sf and an adjusted building size of 1,564-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .23 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 74.90 ft. The property was built in 1976. The property sold in May 2017 for $286,000. The property is located at 697 109Th Avenue North, Naples FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 30 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions 2018-00371 Page 2 of 6 and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, photographs and aerial of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 3 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from May 2017 to December 2017. The front footage for each sale is 50ft; the sale price range is $4,688 to $4,792/FF. PAO reconciled at $4,560/FF or $341,544. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total building cost is estimated at $84,820, the land value is estimated at $341,544 for a total cost of $426,364. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 improved sales. The sales occurred from April 2017 to July 2017. The sales range in adjusted building size from 1,296-sfto 2,002-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 55FF to 68.5 FF. The buildings were built from 1976 to 2002. The sales range from $183.00 to $270/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $237.00/sf of building area or $371,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $358,774. PET's evidence was an 8-page report which consists of a cover letter, DR-493 form, letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, aerial photograph, comparable sales chart, MLS listing for the subject and comparable sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 improved sales. The sales occurred from March 201 7 to December 2017. The sales range in building size from 1,296-sf to 1,809-sf; PET used a building size of 1,564-sf which is the under-air area. The land size for these sales ranges from 6,534-sfto 10,019-sf; the subject has 15,2446- sf. The buildings were built from 1976 to 1998. PET indicates a value of $286,000 less cost of sales of $42,900 for an indicated value of $243,100 PET estimated value: $243,100. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase "just value" has 2018-00371 Page 3 of 6 been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc.v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the fallowing manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; 2018-00371 Page 4 of 6 (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET' s sales format is difficult to follow to determine the price/sf paid for the properties. PAO indicated two of PET's sales are disqualified and one sale is a land sale with no improvements. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO' s sale # 3 is a larger property and Sale # 5 had been renovated. PET indicated the subject property was listed in MLS and sold within 86 days. This is a market transaction and not a short sale. The sale of the subject property took place in May 2017 and is a market sale. Most emphasis should be placed on this sale in estimating value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at the sale price of $286,000. PAO does not deduct for cost of sales as previously mentioned. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00371: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a 2018-00371 Page 5 of 6 preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) The sale of the subject property took place in May 2017 and is a market sale. Most emphasis should be placed on this sale in estimating value. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $286,000. 2018-00371 Page 6 of 6 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00372 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 22510010005 Property address 211 AUDUBON BLVD NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,054,793.00 1,054,793.00 825,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 943,471.00 943,471.00 825,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 893,471.00 893,471.00 775,000.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) [ZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube 10/30/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D 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 2018-00372 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00372: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,054,793. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 3,735-sf and an adjusted building size of 5,072-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .37 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 107.00 ft. The property was built in 1996. The property is located in an upscale gated community with a golf course. The property sold in March 2018 for $825,000. The property is located at 211 Audubon Boulevard, Naples FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and 2018-00372 Page 2 of 7 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, photographs and aerial of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 4 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to June 2017. Three of the four land sales are residual values, where the estimated value of the improvements was extracted from the value to arrive at the estimated land value. The land sales range in size from 112.47 FF to 142.71 FF; the sale price range is $3,983 to $7,140/FF. PAO reconciled at $3,950/FF or $422,650. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total building cost is estimated at $789,968, the land value is estimated at $422,650 for a total cost of $1,212,618. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 3 improved sales in the same subdivision. The sales occurred from March 2017 to June 2017. The sales range in adjusted building size from 4,607-sf to 5,132-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 112.47 FF to 142.71 FF. The buildings were built from 1995 to 1999. The sales range from $258.00 to $320/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $271.00/sf of building area or $1,375,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $1,054,793. PET's evidence was a 35-page report which consists of a cover letter, Bulletin: PTO 11-01, Florida Statute 193, advisory memo from Florida Department of Revenue, Bulletin: PTO 09-27, DR-493 form, letter from Collier County Property Appraiser, property record for the subject, aerial photograph, comparable sales chart, MLs listing for the subject and comparable sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 3 improved sales in the same subdivision. The sales occurred from April 2017 to January 2018. The sales range in building size from 3,106-sfto 4,042-sf; PET used a building size of 3,740-sfwhich is the under-air area. The land size for these sales ranges from 9,583-sf to 25,564-sf; the subject has 15,246-sf. The buildings were built from 1994 to 1998. The adjusted sales 2018-00372 Page 3 of 7 range from $762,500 to $907,250. PET reconciled a value at $825,000. PET indicated the sale of the subject in March 2018 is out of the range of sales for a January 1, 2018 value, however, the sale was listed on MLS and was on the market for 281 days; the original asking price was $1,480,000. PET indicated the asking price on MLS was below the Just Value of $1,054,793 for 138 days and ultimately sold for $825,000. PET also indicated that typically sales are negotiated 30-60 days before the sale occurs; this was not a fire sale; the property was exposed to the market for a reasonable period of time. PET estimated value: $825,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc.v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the 2018-00372 Page 4 of 7 following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated this development has different price points depending if the property is a tract home or a custom home. The subject is a custom home. PAO indicated two of PET's sales are tract homes and not comparable to the subject. PAO indicated the property is currently for sale at an asking price of $1,549,000. PET indicated the sale of the subject in March 2018 is out of the range of sales for a January 1, 2018 value, however, the sale was listed on MLS and was on the market for 281 days; the original asking price was $1,480,000. PET indicated the asking price on MLS was below the Just Value of $1,054,793 for 138 days and ultimately sold for $825,000. PET also indicated that typically sales are negotiated 30-60 days before the sale occurs. This was not a fire sale; the property was exposed to the market for a reasonable period of time. 2018-00372 Page 5 of 7 PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at the sale price of $825,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00372: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) PET indicated the sale of the subject in March 2018 is out of the range of sales for a January 1, 2018 range, however, the sale was listed on MLS and was on the market for 281 days; the original asking price was $1,480,000. PET indicated the asking price on MLS was below the Just Value of $1,054,793 for 138 days and ultimately sold for $825,000. PET also indicated that typically sales are negotiated 30-60 days before the sale occurs. This was not a fire sale; the property was exposed to the market for a reasonable period of time. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. 2018-00372 Page 6 of 7 PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $825,000. 2018-00372 Page 7 of 7 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00373 Parcel ID 57396360009 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 468 BALD EAGLEDR MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 190,380.00 190,380.00 130,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 190,380.00 190,380.00 130,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 190,380.00 190,380.00 130,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube 10/30/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00373 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00373: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $190,380. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property a vacant dry lot-no water frontage. The site size has an adjusted front foot (FF) of 80.16. The site is zoned residential. The site sold in September 2017 for $130,000. The property is located at 468 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other i terns of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 32 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning and aerial of the subject. PAO developed Sales Comparison Approach only, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, and the property 2018-00373 Page 2 of 6 record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO' s presented the Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 9 land sales. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to March 2018. PAO indicated that land sales from different neighborhoods were researched and included in the analysis; PAO indicated that some of the sales were cleared and some were not. The subject is a cleared lot. The land sales were analyzed on a price per front foot (FF); the sales range in size from 79.99 FF to 137.68 FF. The adjusted sales range from $1,158 to $3,330 /FF with a mean of$2,000/FF and a median of $2,270/FF. PAO reconciled at $3,119/FF or $250,000 rounded. PAO'sjust value conclusion: $190,380 or $2,375/FF. PET's evidence was a 22-page report which consisted of a cover letter, Bulletin: PTO 11-01, Florida Statute 193, advisory memo from Florida Department of Revenue, Bulletin: PTO 09-27, DR-493 form, settlement statement of the sale, Collier County property summary card, aerial of the subject, comparable sales with aerial photos. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 4 land sales, including the subject sale. The land sales occurred from March 2017 to December 2017. The sales sold at a range in value from $110,000 to $150,000. PET placed most emphasis on the sale of the subject at $130,000, stating the site was listed for sale on the MLS and was exposed to the open market for a reasonable period of time. PET estimated value: $130,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the 2018-00373 Page 3 of 6 evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO did not develop the Cost Approach; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for vacant land; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment 2018-00373 Page 4 of 6 was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's sale at 321 Hideaway Circle Sis located in a gated community, not comparable to the subject; PAO also indicated this was a short sale and was a disqualified sale. PAO indicated the sale at 1299 Andalusia Terrace sold in March 2018, outside the time frame for sales that occurred prior to January 2018. As rebuttal, PET indicated the sale on Andalusia Terrace was negotiated during the typical time frame of 30 to 60 days prior to sale. PET analyzed the site on a price/sf and indicated that lots not located on the water front are typically analyzed on a price/sf. PET indicated PAO's Just Value at $190,380 is $18.31/sfoflot area (10,397-sf); the sale of the site at $130,000 indicates a price of$12.50/sf. PET analyzed PAO's sales on a price/ sf, the sales indicate a range from $8.13 to $28.00/sf with the Sales# 1 to 4 and 9 being in the $8.13 to $14.57/sf, well within the range of $12.50/sffor the sale of the subject. PET's evidence is considered to be more credible, more relevant and sufficient. PET based the value of the property on the recent sale of the property that was listed on MLS and exposed on the open market for a reasonable period of time. PET also analyzed PAO's sales on a price/sf and the sales tend to support a value of$130,000. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at the sale price of $130,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00373: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. 2018-00373 Page 5 of 6 In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) PET based the value of the property on the recent sale of the property that was listed on MLS and exposed on the open market for a reasonable period of time. PET also analyzed PAO's sales on a price/sf and the sales tend to support a value of $130,000. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $130,000. 2018-00373 Page 6 of 6 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00374 Parcel ID 55751006120 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD Property 9934 CORSO BELLO DR The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 955,876.00 955,876.00 955,876.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 955,876.00 955,876.00 955,876.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 955,876.00 955,876.00 955,876.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 10/29/2018 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axice D 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 oarties 2018-00374 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00374: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $955,876. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,474-sf and an adjusted building size of 4,015-sf. The adjusted size of 4,015-sf accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .57 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 124.39 ft. The property was built in 2017. The property is located in an upscale gated community with a golf course. The property sold in June 2017 for $1,037,700. The property is located at 9934 Corso Bello Drive, Naples FL. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85°/4. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 27 pages. The report included the evidence and 2018-00374 Page 2 of 6 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning photos and aerial of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 2 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to May 2017. The land sales range in size from 120.9FF to 141.53 FF; the sale price range is $1,933 to $3,983/FF. PAO reconciled at $3,098/FF or $385,298. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total building cost is estimated at $806,981, the land value is estimated at $385,298 for a total cost of $1,192,279. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the same subdivision. The sales occurred from January 2017 to July 2017. The sales range in building size from 3,756-sf to 4,256-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 84.46 FF to 124.39 FF. The buildings were built from 2016 to 2017. The sales range from $258.00 to $304/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $280.00/sf of building area or $1,124,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $955,876. PET's evidence was a 6-page report which consists of a cover letter, letter from Collier County Appraiser, DR-493, comparable sales chart and information sheet on the subject property. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET requested a 15% cost of sales reduction to the sale price of $1,037,700 for an indicated value of $882,045. PET estimated value: $882,045. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent 2018-00374 Page 3 of 6 year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 2018-00374 Page 4 of 6 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.01 I, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET requested a 15% cost of sales reduction to the sale price of$1,037,700. PAO indicated Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price as previously indicated in PAO's evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00374: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO' s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 2018-00374 Page 5 of 6 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET requested a 15% cost of sales reduction to the sale price of $1,037,700. PAO indicated Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price as previously indicated in PAO's evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00374 Page 6 of 6 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00376 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 16006280009 Property 4077 9TH STN address NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,666,632.00 5,666,632.00 5,666,632.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,257,178.00 5,257,178.00 5,257,178.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,257,178.00 5,257,178.00 5,257,178.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 10/29/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00376 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00376: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John McDonald of Property Tax Professionals, Inc, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $5,666,632 The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as four two-story class C mixed-use office/retail buildings. The property is mostly office, a restaurant is the retail only portion. The buildings contain a total of 32,550-sf and the land size is 108,928-sf or 2.50 acres+/-. The buildings were built in 1977 and 1978. The property is located at 4077 9th Street North, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard in 2018 only, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2018-00376 Page 2 of 8 PAO, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 108 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, zoning map and sketch of the property, both site and building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and included land sales with a location map of the sales; and building cost estimates. The Sale Comparison Approach included comparable building sales with location map. The Income Approach included a proforma. The addenda contain the deed with legal description, supporting income data, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales, detailed analysis with photos of the comparable building sales and leases, and property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the city of Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from November 2012 to November 2017 with three sales having occurred in the year 2017. The land sales range in size from 18,113-sfto 116,127-sf; the sale price range is $37.27 to $119.50/sf. The 2017 sales range from $44.35 to $119.50/sf. The mean of all the sales is $55.57 /sf and the median is $44. 77 /sf. PAO reconciled at $50.00/sf or $5,446,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $1,136,410 and impact fees at $367,489; the land value is estimated at $5,446,400 for a total cost of $6,950,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 14 sales of office buildings. The sales occurred from June 2015 to December 2017. The sales range in building size from 5,790-sfto 60,552-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 13,500-sfto 134, 165-sf. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2006. The sales range from $152.17 to $345.35/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $235.59/sf of building area and a median price of $239.00/sf of building area. PAO reconciled a value at $235.00/sf of building area or $7,649,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO included, from CoStar market survey, 7 office rents located along US-41 and 3rd Street in close proximity to the subject. The asking rents range from $15.00 to $41.50/sftriple net with most of the asking rents being in the $20-$25/sfrange triple net. The space ranges from 907-sfto 20,979-sf. PAO also provided confidential rents compiled by their office. The leases were negotiated in the year 2017 and are located in Naples, Marco Island and Collier County. The space ranges from 1,771 to 32,550-sf; rents range from $5.97 to $46.08 with a mean of $19.26/sf. 2018-00376 Page 3 of 8 Valbridge's market survey indicates average rents in Naples at $24.39/sf. The rents included common area maintenance (CAM). PAO provided vacancy support for office space from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2017 and 4th Q 2017. Vacancies range from 2.80% to 8.3% with an average of 5.84%. Vacancies from confidential information from PAO is 6.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of7%. PAO used a rental rate of $25.00/sf, including CAM for an annual income of $813,750. PAO used a 7% vacancy rate for an effective gross income (EGI) of $756,788. Operating expenses were estimated at 20% of EGL The net operating income (NOI) is $605,430. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from information provided from CoStar and confidential information from PAO. These reports are dated throughout 2017. CoStar reports cap rates from 6.25% to 7.4% with a mean of 7.19% and a median of 6.87%. Confidential information from PAO indicates a cap rate range of 3.90% to 7% with a mean of 6.15%.PAO used a cap rate of 8%. The NOI of $605,430 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of $7,568,000 rounded. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F .S. 192.042 (1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass 2018-00376 Page 4 of 8 appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 loutlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the fallowing manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -The PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income -PAO applied the Income Approach using current market rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PAO's just value conclusion: $5,666,632. PET's evidence was a 41-page report which consisted of a cover letter, Bulletin: PTO 11-01, Florida Statute 193, advisory memo from Florida Department of Revenue, 2018-00376 Page 5 of 8 Bulletin: PTO 09-27, DR-493 form, photographs of the subject, Income Approach proforma, rent roll for the subject, profit and loss statement for 2017, comparable gross lease charts, vacancy charts, comparable leases, capitalization rate surveys, comparable sales chart with location map of the comparable sales, expense survey, comparable rents from CoStar survey. PET developed the Income Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was not included in this analysis. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided an Income Analysis. PET indicated the subject is 98% occupied. The rent roll indicates leases in the $15.00 to $22.02/sf range (without CAM). The common area maintenance (CAM) for these leases is $5.70/sf. The total rent including CAM ranges from $20.70 to $27.72/sf. PET provided comparable rents from Costar market survey; the rents are for office and retail space. The rents range from $12.75 to $19.00/sftriple net, without CAM. The most recent lease at the subject was for 1,033-sf at $15.00/sf with a CAM of $5.70/sffor a total of $25.70/sf. PET used a rent of$23.60/sfincluding CAM. PET supports vacancy rates from market surveys. The vacancy rate in North Naples ranges from 6% to 8%. Operating expenses from Costar's survey indicates a CAM range of $5.37 to $10.24/sfincluding real estate taxes. PET's gross rent is $761,058; Pet used a vacancy rate of 10% for an effective gross income (EGI) of $684,95. Operating expenses were estimated at 47% of EGI or $321,927. The net operating income (NOi) is $363,024. PET supported the overall capitalization rate ( cap rate) from market surveys by real estate companies such as CoStar and Situs RERC (market survey reports) which indicates cap rates for office buildings, as of the 4th Q 2017, from 7.6% to 8.00%. PET used a cap rate of7.5% and capitalized the NOI of$363,024 for an indicated value of $4,840,326; less 10% cost of sales indicates a value of $4,356,293. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach. PET included 5 sales of office and retail buildings. The sales occurred from February 2016 to September 2018. The building area for the sales ranges from 20,164 to 148,656-sf and land area from 80,150 to 864,230-sf. The buildings were built from 1981 to 1999. The indicated sale ranges from $44.00 to $164/sf. PET does not provide a value by the Sales Comparison Approach. PET placed most emphasis on the Income Approach. As rebuttal, PAO, indicated PET's Income Approach included real estate taxes, which is a large expense and is not included in this analysis; inclusion of the taxes reduces the value of the property. PET's comparable rents are located in inferior locations as compared to the subject and indicate lower rents. PET's sale# 4 and #5 are sales that 2018-00376 Page 6 of 8 occurred in 2018; these sales are outside the timeframe for a value dated January 1, 2018. PAO indicated the subject land value, which was well supported by current land sales provides good support for the just value. The subject is located in a high traffic area that is fully developed and the area is in transition; properties are being purchased and redeveloped. As rebuttal, PET indicated the subject has no interior corridors and this is reflected in the lower rents being charged; office buildings with interior corridors typically demand a higher rent. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. The subject is located along 9th A venue S (US-41) and is a major thoroughfare. PET used comparable rents and sales located in inferior locations. PAO used rents and sales of properties in close proximity to the subject or similar locations. PAO's evidence was considered more credible and more relevant. PET's value is understated. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00376: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or 2018-00376 Page 7 of 8 more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. The subject is located along 9th Avenue S (US-41) and is a major thoroughfare. PET used comparable rents and sales located in inferior locations. PAO used rents and sales of properties in close proximity to the subject or similar locations. PAO's evidence was considered more credible and more relevant. PET's value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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 view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00376 Page 8 of 8 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00378 Petitioner name CHARLIE YOUNG The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 53750280004 Property 3601 LAKEWOODBLVD address NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,199,802.00 3,199,802.00 3,199,802.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,674,205.00 2,674,205.00 2,674,205.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,674,205.00 2,674,205.00 2,674,205.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/11/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision SiQnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00378 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00378: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Charlie Young) did not appear for this hearing; however, he did submit an email requesting that his evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a nursing and assisted living facility [licensed for 120 beds] originally built in 1982, then an addition was built in 1992. The subject's address is 3601 Lakewood Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 39,480 SF situated upon a site of 114,730 SF, or 2.63 acres. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There are no recent sales of the subject. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,199,802, or $81.05/SF of adjusted building area. As with all V AB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, 2007 deed (showing the legal description), Marshall Valuation support ( for the Cost Approach), exterior/interior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, sale comp sheets from CoStar. A chart labeled "Income Support Data" is provided for vacancies & cap rates, & rental rates/SF/month from various sources. The PAO also provides various pages from the subject's website. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $8/SF, plus $917,840 of impact fees for a total of $1,196,456 (which is 37.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 8 land sale indicators . Three closed during 2017, 4 during 2016, and 1 closed in 4/2018 ( after the assessment date) that is only considered for trending purposes for $15.19/SF. The PAO gives greatest weight to Land Sale #3 ($7.91/ SF), because it was developed with an assisted living facility. Land Sale #3 is also the lowest land sale indicator of his survey. Land Sale #2 (along Tamiami Trail East) is the physically closest to the subject with an indicator of $8.75/SF. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($2,859,557) & site improvements/paving at $72,586, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $4,129,000 to support the subject's assessment of $3,199,802. The PAO could have also added entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, soft costs, and costs to achieve the current level of occupancy, which (together) would have added many hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Cost Approach estimate. I do notice the PAO applied different levels of physical depreciation the structures, given the building improvements were built in two different phases. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 5 sales that closed between 2013 and 2016. Sale #1 was a skilled nursing facility in Venice that sold for $127 /SF. The rest are Collier sales. The $/SF indicators from all 5 sales range from $127-$371/SF, with a median of $153/SF. Sale #5 is physically not far from the subject & it sold for $138.95/SF. The PAO concludes $155/SF X 39,480 SF= $6,119,000, less TPP of $375,137, or $5,743,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach conclusion. The 2018-00378 Page 2 of 4 PAO gives less weight to this approach, as it is strictly based upon a physical unit of comparison that is not particularly the driving force of value determination for this property type. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $24/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 60%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8% to NOI of $341,107 for a value indication of $4,263,840, less TPP of$375,137, or $3,888,000. The PAO was not provided with historical income for the subject from the subject's owner. I give little weight to this approach, given so little information is available to support its inputs. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach for this management-intensive property type. The Cost Approach is best equipped to provide the fee simple value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating he would like his evidence considered. The PET just one page of evidence relevant to this hearing, which was a Cost Approach. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $1,942,263 but has one substantial error by not providing market-oriented support for land value. The PET does appear to have used the PAO's allocated/administrative land value of $573,650. This is not proper methodology for this hearing, as land value should be market-derived (as demonstrated by the PAO). The PET also fails to include impact fees ($278,616), paving ($72,586 used by the PAO), soft costs, land taxes during construction, and entrepreneurial profit. The PET's failure to provide market-oriented land value support is a major deficiency relating to H&BU, and not consistent with the 8 Criteria. Another issue with the PET' s Cost Approach relates to his use of weighted average depreciation of 78%. I note that one of the subject's buildings is already 36 years old, while the 2nd phase is now 26 years old. The PET assumes a weighted effective age of 31 years and a 40-year life. It would appear the PET's use of a 31-year effective age results in excess depreciation applied to the subject. The PAO's subject photos do not suggest a building that close to the end of its life expectancy. If that were the case, the PET should have made far better attempts to convey the degree of deferred maintenance, physical deterioration, etc. via photographs, cost estimates, etc. I give no weight to the PET' s Cost Approach, because it was not properly prepared with relevant inputs supported. The PET did submit a I-page rebuttal of the PAO's evidence, which I accepted at the hearing & entered into the record. 1 do tend to agree with the PE T's criticisms of the PAO's Sales & Income Approaches. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & the PET's Cost Approach is not properly prepared. While I do not give any significance to the PAO' s Sales Comparison Approach or his Income Approach, the PAO's Cost Approach is better prepared, even though it is still missing some relevant items that could have been considered. If anything, the PAO's Cost Approach is low. Regardless, the PAO does support the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00378: 2018-00378 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00378 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 IZ] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00380 Petitioner name CHARLIE YOUNG The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 65370960103 Property 101 CYPRESS WAYE address NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary IZ] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,078,523.00 4,078,523.00 4,078,523.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,078,523.00 4,078,523.00 4,078,523.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,078,523.00 4,078,523.00 4,078,523.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/15/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00380 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00380: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Charlie Young) did not appear for this hearing; however, he did submit an email requesting that his evidence submitted into the record be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an assisted living facility [licensed for 72 beds] originally built in 1995. The subject's address is 101 Cypress Way East. The adjusted building area is 42,307 SF situated upon a site of 158,558 SF, or 3.64 acres. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold for $6,950,000 in March 2006. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of $4,078,523, or $96.40/SF of adjusted building area. As with all V AB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building· sketch, 2006 deed (showing the legal description), Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior/interior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, sale comp sheets from CoStar. A chart labeled "Income Support Data" is provided for vacancies & cap rates, & rental rates/SF /month from various sources. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $13/SF, plus $282,203 of impact fees for a total of $2,343,457 (which is 57.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 7 land sale indicators. Four closed during 2017, while 3 closed during 2016. The sales form a range between $9.39/SF-$17.31/SF, with an average of$13.14/SF & median of $12/SF (rounded). The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($2,298,144) & site improvements/paving at $46,020, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $4,688,000 to support the subject's assessment of $4,078,523. The PAO could have also added entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, soft costs, and costs to achieve the current level of occupancy, which (together) would have added many hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Cost Approach estimate. It is noted the PET makes a rebuttal comment that the PAO uses a 60-year life, yet the PET states the PAO should have used a 55-year life. Furthermore, the PET uses a 50-year lift in his own Cost Approach, even though stating in rebuttal 55 years should be used. Even if true, that would not have mattered to this ruling & given the PAO should have also applied other costs noted previously in this paragraph. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 5 sales that closed between 2013 and 2016. Sale #1 is the high sale indicator (per SF), which results in a range of$138.95-181.23/SF when it is removed. The PAO concludes $155/SF X 42,307 SF= $6,558,100, less TPP of $157,333, or $6,401,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach conclusion. The PAO gives less weight to this approach, as it is strictly based upon a physical unit of comparison that is not particularly the driving force of value determination for this property type. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss 2018-00380 Page 2 of 4 at 10%, expenses at 60%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8% to NOI of$456,916 for a value indication of $5,711,000, less TPP of $157,333, or $5,554,000. The PAO was not provided with historical income for the subject from the subject's owner. I give little weight to this approach, given so little information is available to support its inputs. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach for this management-intensive property type. The Cost Approach is best equipped to provide the fee simple value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: As stated, the PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email stating he would like his evidence considered. The PET just one page of evidence relevant to this hearing, which was a Cost Approach. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $3,250,000 but has one substantial error by not providing market-oriented support for land value. The PET does appear to have used the PAO's allocated/administrative land value of $1,221,000. This is not proper methodology for this hearing, as land value should be market-derived (as demonstrated by the PAO). The PET also fails to include impact fees ($282,203), paving ($46,020 used by the PAO), soft costs, land taxes during construction, and entrepreneurial profit. The PET's failure to provide market-oriented land value support is a major deficiency relating to H&BU, and not consistent with the 8 Criteria. Another issue with the PET's Cost Approach relates to his use of weighted average depreciation of 46%. PET's rebuttal of the PAO states a 55 year life should be used. If so, then the PET should have applied 41.8% depreciation (i.e. 23/55 = 41.8%). In addition, the PET makes an 'economic obsolescence' deduction of 15% 'due to low occupancy in 2017'. Support and logic for that deduction are not clear to at all, even though (in rebuttal) the PET notes the subject has a 54.5% census [i.e. occupancy] for 2017. It is unknown if the subject was suffering management issues or some other problems caused the occupancy to drop, given the prevailing economy was fine for most properties. The PET was not at the hearing to better explain how that 15% economic obsolescence figure was derived. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it was not properly prepared with relevant inputs supported and it fails to use market-derived land value. The PET did submit a 1-page rebuttal of the PAO' s evidence, which I accepted at the hearing & entered into the record. 1 do tend to agree with the PET's criticisms of the PAO's Sales & Income Approaches. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak & the PET's Cost Approach is not properly prepared. While I do not give any significance to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach or his Income Approach, the PAO's Cost Approach is better prepared, even though it is still missing some relevant items that could have been considered. If anything, the PAO's Cost Approach is low. Regardless, the PAO does support the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO' s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00380: 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 2018-00380 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00380 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00381 Petitioner name MYRTLE HOLDINGS INC The petitioner is: [l] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 01650000200 Property address 771 ANDERSONDR NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 706,771.00 706,771.00 706,771.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 268,679.00 268,679.00 268,679.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 268,679.00 268,679.00 268,679.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier 11/06/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sicmature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00381 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00381: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00381: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Christian Busk. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $706,771. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 771 Anderson Drive, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO' s report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided an appraisal dated October 2018 which is not considered relevant to the 1/01/2018 date of valuation and is not considered.no The Petitioner discussed the low rent he was able to get for renting the house. The petitioner did not provide any credible market data to overcome the presumption of correctness and the appraiser did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214,216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), 2018-00381 Page 2 of 4 F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is 2018-00381 Page 3 of 4 determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does not overcome the PAO's value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00381: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-003 81: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $706,771 presumed correct. 2018-00381 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00382 Petitioner name MYRTLE HOLDINGS INC The petitioner is: Ill taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 01650000307 Property 795 ANDERSON DR address NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 632,009.00 632,009.00 632,009.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 238,583.00 238,583.00 238,583.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 238,583.00 238,583.00 238,583.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier 11/06/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axic:a D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00382 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00382: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00382: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Christian Busk for Myrtle Holdings Inc. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $632,009. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 795 Anderson Drive, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO's evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PET provided an appraisals dated October 2018 which is not considered relevant to the I /01/2018 valuation date and is not considered. The petitioner did not provide any credible market data to overcome the presumption of correctness and the appraiser did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2018-00382 Page 2 of 4 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F. S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the evidence and testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does 2018-00382 Page 3 of 4 not overcome the PAO's value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00382: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00382: 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $632,009 presumed correct. 2018-00382 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00383 Parcel ID 13250001053 Petitioner name MYRTLE HOLDINGS INC The petitioner is: [l] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 816 MYRTLETER NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 639,390.00 639,390.00 639,390.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 253,462.00 253,462.00 253,462.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 253,462.00 253,462.00 253,462.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/07/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to carties 2018-00383 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00383: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00383: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner Christian Busk for Myrtle Holdings Inc. The petitioner provided no evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $639,390. The TRIM value has not changed. PET provided no evidence. The petitioner did not provide any credible market data to overcome the presumption of correctness and the appraiser did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO' s value is presumed correct. Special magistrate finds the testimony of petitioner not to be relevant or credible as admitted and does not overcome the PAO's value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00383: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00383: 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, PAO's value of$639,390. presumed correct. 2018-00383 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00384 Petitioner name KATELYN ANDREWS The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 66760010044 Property address 6381 NAPLESBLVD NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 8,500,698.00 8,500,698.00 8,500,698.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,500,698.00 8,500,698.00 8,500,698.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,500,698.00 8,500,698.00 8,500,698.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00384 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00384: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Ander Solupe) with Ryan did appear & submitted evidence for this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Kohl's department store built in 2008 & located at 6381 Naples Boulevard in Naples, FL. The subject is located within a power center known as "Pine Air Lakes", which also includes a Best Buy, Lowe's, Aldi, & a Costco in close proximity to the subject. This power center is just west of Airport Road North. The subject has an adjusted building size of 88,538 SF situated upon a site of 429,595.55 SF (9.86 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $8,500,698 (i.e. $96.01/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $14/SF, plus $6,014,344 of impact fees for a total of $1,704,352 for a total of $7,718,696 (which is a substantial portion of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 8 commercial land sale indicators, with #4 and #5 being extremely close to the subject and very supportive of the $14/SF figure. Sale #5 ($17 .18/SF) also happens to be a large parcel very similar in size to the subject & it also has the same zoning. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($9,479,602) & site improvements/paving at $190,169, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $17,388,467. While the PAO does not provide a specific calculation for external obsolescence, it appears there is significant market resistance to the subject's building size. This is due to more on-line shopping and the fact that many retail chains have downsized their 'brick & mortar' locations. The PAO's assessment is less than half of his total Cost Approach indicator, yet the building is only 10 years old. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 9 improved sales from various SW Florida counties in Florida. Sales 6, 7, & 8 are from non-Collier markets. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, zoning, & other details relating to those sales are also provided. The PAO concludes $150/SF of building area X 88,538 SF= $13,281,000 for the subject. The estimated price/ SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location. The PAO considers Sale #3 (a dark/closed Sports Authority) to be a good indicator, given it is in close proximity to the subject. It is noted that Improved Sales #6 (Port Charlotte) & #7 (Cape Coral) were leased fee sales that had leases that very likely influenced their sales prices; thus, given less weight. Improved Sales #1 (Hobby Lobby@ $169.85/SF) & #2 (Orchid Hardware at $487.52/SF) are both leased fee Collier County sales given less emphasis and weight, due to their leases in place. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $8,972,000 (rounded), based upon a $10/SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 20% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOi of $672,889. The PAO provides rent comparables, yet the vast majority are much smaller stores, while the subject is large. The PAO also provides general capitalization rate data from various sources, including specific leased fee offerings. 2018-00384 Page 2 of 5 The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area, but also by the supporting evidence and inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach. Given the subject's land component is substantial and very well supported, I give strong weight to the Cost Approach with emphasis on the land value + impact fees. The improvements still do appear to offer substantial value, yet there very likely is obsolescence in the market, due to the migration of big box tenants into smaller stores due to more on-line retail sales taking place nationwide. The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing & did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. The PET submitted a cover sheet (requesting a $7M just value), breakdown of the subject's assessment information from the tax rolls, aerial photographs, subject's CoStar information/photograph, street map, lease comps, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, & Income Approach. Back-up market information (i.e. rate surveys, lease comps, various articles on big boxes, store closings, Bulletin PTO 11-01, Collier County's 2018 DR-493, and sales back-up CoStar sheets are included in the PET's evidence package. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET considers 7 lease comps in various SW Florida Counties. Arguably, all of those locations/counties are inferior, particularly the Arcadia location. Only 1 rent comp (Hobby Lobby with 311,454 SF) is in Collier County, yet it is at $10/SF NNN. [Note: The PAO uses $10/SF gross for the subject's much smaller 88,538 SF.] While the subject was built in 2008, all of the 6 o the 7 rent comps used by the PET are much older buildings constructed between 1964-1996. Only the Hobby Lobby in Naples is a newer building (2016). While the PET' s rent comps provide a median rent of $10/SF, the average is $8.46/SF. The PET uses $8.00/SF in his Income Approach, which seems low for the subject's location and age. Again, the only Collier rent indicator was at $10/SF, which is what the PAO used as his input for rent. The PET uses 6% vacancy, 6% operating expenses, 4% reserves and applies a 7.5% unloaded capitalization rate. This results in a value indicator of $6. 8M ( after a 10% cost of sale deduction). Various inputs provided by the PET appear to skew the value indication lower than what would appear reasonable for a store of this size and rent comparables provided by the PET. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET uses Swift Estimator by Marshall & Swift. However, the PET obtains his land value by using the PAO' s land breakdown from the assessment information, which is not appropriate. The PET should obtain the land value from market information. Furthermore, the PET uses a 15% 'functional' obsolescence deduction on page 22, along with a 20% physical depreciation deduction. The methodology on page 24 (for deriving functional and physical depreciation) also appears flawed because it seems to deduct the land assessments from each of the 4 sales considered (from 4 non-Collier markets in Florida). The form of analysis does not appear to be sufficient for proving functional ( or external) obsolescence in Collier County, if it is the intent of the PET to show big boxes are losing favor in the marketplace. The PET appears to conclude a Cost Approach final estimate of $7,093,458, apparently -prior to any COS adjustment. I give the PET's Cost Approach no weight, due to lack of proper analysis (particularly with respect to the land value & lack of impact fees). I did accept 5 2018-00384 Page 3 of 5 pages of Marshall Valuation cost information from the PET at the hearing. The PET was making the distinction between a discount store, as compared to a department store. The PET's Cost Approach presentation uses the 'discount' store data. In the PET's Comparable Assessment Analysis presented on page 26, the PET fails to provide the year built for each of the assessment comparables. The FAR ( or L TB ratio) could have been shown too, given land and building areas are provided. Regardless, the analysis is inconclusive without the building ages provided, even though the subject's assessment/SF of building area happens to be higher than the 5 assessment comparables provided. The PET fails to conclusive prove the PAO is assessing the subject in a different manner than other properties in its same class ( or use). In the PET' s Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides 4 improved sales that offer very limited comparability to the subject's property Collier County location. The PET's comparables come from Palmetto, Panama City, Odessa (a very small market) and Orlando (which is a 2015 sale). Simply stated, it is not difficult to look all around Florida to find some low sales of big box stores, particularly from smaller market areas with limited buying power. All 4 of the sales provided are older than the subject but there is one sale built in 2006. The rest were built in 1999 or before. The subject was built in 2008. The PET also fails to show the LTB ratio (or FAR's) of the sales, which can be important. The $/SF prices of the 4 sales range from $33.01-$58.74, which is about half ( or less) than the subject's assessment of $96.01/SF of adjusted building area. Overall, I give very little weight to the PET's sales analysis, given the lack of comparables that have sufficient comparability. RULING: The PET's presentation lacks good data, proper analysis, and sufficient proof of H&BU with regard to the base line value of the underlying land (with impact fees, which run with the land). While there may very well be good merit to discussions related to functional ( or external) obsolescence in the market with respect to big box transactions, the PAO 's assessment is only slightly greater than the (well supported) land value+ impact fees, yet the very substantial (and 10-year old) building of 88,538 SF. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00384: 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 2018-00384 Page 4 of 5 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. 2018-00384 Page 5 of 5 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00403 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MAL y The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 25118010048 Property 8831 IMMOKALEE RD address NAPLES, FL 34120 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,011,097.00 3,011,097.00 3,011,097.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,693,269.00 2,693,269.00 2,693,269.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,693,269.00 2,693,269.00 2,693,269.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. [ll Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axictJ D 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 oarties 2018-00403 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00403: The Petitioner did submit an email on 10/ 16/ 18 indicating she will not be attending the hearing. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not submit any evidence into the record. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Redding, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they did not need to testify at this hearing. The PAO' s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00403: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00403 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00404 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MAL y The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent 0 other, explain: Parcel ID 00726725009 Property address 6800 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,101,108.00 3,101,108.00 3,101,108.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,018,851.00 3,018,851.00 3,018,851.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,018,851.00 3,018,851.00 3,018,851.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/05/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi~ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00404 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00404: The Petitioner did submit an email on 10/16/18 indicating she will not be attending the hearing. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not submit any evidence into the record. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Redding, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they did not need to testify at this hearing. The PAO' s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00404: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00404 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12O-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00405 Parcel ID 61942360009 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MAL y The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 5296 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,716,692.00 2,716,692.00 2,716,692.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,500,244.00 2,500,244.00 2,500,244.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,500,244.00 2,500,244.00 2,500,244.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. IZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axice D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00405 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00405: The Petitioner did submit an email on 10/16/18 indicating she will not be attending the hearing. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not submit any evidence into the record. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Redding, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they did not need to testify at this hearing. The PAO' s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00405: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00405 Page 2 of 2 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00406 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 00076560008 Property address 101115THST IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,153,115.00 1,153,115.00 1,153,115.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,153,115.00 1,153,115.00 1,153,115.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,153,115.00 1,153,115.00 1,153,115.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson 11/05/2018 Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00406 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00406: The Petitioner did submit an email on 10/16/18 indicating she will not be attending the hearing. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not submit any evidence into the record. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Redding, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they did not need to testify at this hearing. The PAO' s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00406: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00406 Page 2 of 2 II DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00407 Parcel ID 57490940008 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MAL y Property 440 ELKCAMCIR The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,992,649.00 1,992,649.00 1,992,649.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,992,649.00 1,992,649.00 1,992,649.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,992,649.00 1,992,649.00 1,992,649.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [ll Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00407 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00407: The Petitioner did submit an email on 10/16/18 indicating she will not be attending the hearing. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not submit any evidence into the record. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Redding, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they did not need to testify at this hearing. The PAO' s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00407: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00407 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 IZI These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00408 Parcel ID 45999300041 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MAL y Property The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address 5232 GOLDEN GATE PKWY NAPLES, FL 34116 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,685,019.00 1,685,019.00 1,685,019.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,685,019.00 1,685,019.00 1,685,019.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,685,019.00 1,685,019.00 1,685,019.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/05/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D 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 2018-00408 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00408: The Petitioner did submit an email on 10/16/18 indicating she will not be attending the hearing. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not submit any evidence into the record. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Redding, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they did not need to testify at this hearing. The PAO' s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00408: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00408 Page 2 of 2 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00421 Petitioner name DJ PRICE LLC The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 61833080003 Property 2589 TERRACE AVE address NAPLES, FL 34104 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 358,473.00 358,473.00 358,473.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 189,449.00 189,449.00 189,449.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 189,449.00 189,449.00 189,449.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [ll Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/29/2018 Date 10/31/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axictJ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00421 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00421: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. SM read the petitioner number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $358,473. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00421: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an aciton in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00421 Page 2 of 2 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00440 Parcel ID 80670080001 Petitioner name TOMMY TUCKER C/O ALTUS GROUP US,~ Property The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address D other, explain: 6101 PINE RIDGERD NAPLES, FL 34119 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 72,528,974.00 66,312,204.00 52,421,694.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 59,837,324.00 59,837,324.00 52,421,694.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 59,837,324.00 59,837,324.00 52,421,694.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/07/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sionature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00440 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00440: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Tommy Tucker) with the Altus Group US, Inc. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a hospital known as "Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge". It was formerly a Cleveland Clinic built in 1998 & 2001 & located at 6101 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. The subject is located at the NE quadrant of the I-75 / Pine Ridge Road intersection; thus, it is easily accessible. The subject has an adjusted building size of 232,455 SF situated upon a PUD-zoned site of 1,197,030 SF (27.48 acres). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO opened the hearing to review their package of Florida Statutes and DOR procedures related to their role & duties in the assessment process. The package was labeled "2018 Tax Roll Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data". This information pertains to all of the PAO' s V AB hearings & does not specifically relate to evidence unique to this subject property. It is not necessary to get into the details of DOR procedures relating to the 67 property appraiser offices in this ruling. As for this specific hearing, the PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Income Approach to support the contested just value of$66,312,204. The PAO [and the PET] did not consider the Sales Comparison Approach relevant, given the substantial differences & circumstances that exist among hospital sales. The PAO notes the last sale of the subject was in 2006 for $98M, which is well in excess of the current just value being contested. That prior sale also included a property that is now not a part of the assets being considered in this hearing. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12/SF ($14,364,360), plus $2,676,861 of impact fees [supported by calculations] for a total of $17,041,221 (which is 25.7%of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators, with #5, #9, & and # 10 being close in size to the subject. The average & median of the 10 sales was $12/SF. It is noted that Land Sale # 10 closed in April 2018 (well after the assessment date) for $12.29/SF; thus, it is only considered for trending purposes. The low land sale (#6) was adversely impacted by an FP&L easement, per the PAO. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($67,150,274) & site improvements/paving at $1,491,143, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $68,641,417. The PAO does include Marshall Valuation back-up support & it is based upon a 20-year effective age and a 70-year life [ which the PET disputes with ample evidence]. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $87,278,000 (rounded), based upon 101 beds at a nightly rate of$500 for room income of$18,432,500. The PAO also projects rent of $25/SF (gross) for 232,455 SF for revenue of$5,811,375. Thus, the PAO's total potential gross income (PGI) is estimated at $24,243,875. Vacancy/ collection of 10% is deducted, along with 60% operating expenses for an estimated NOi of $8,727,795 capitalized at 10% (loaded rate), resulting in a value indication of $87,278,000. The owner did not provide any historical income information to the PAO's office. I give no weight to the PAO's Income Approach, given its inputs appear highly subject and unsupported. Realistically, it is quite difficult to prepare an Income 2018-00440 Page 2 of 5 Approach on a hospital ( especially of this size), due to the intensive labor and management associated with operating a hospital. The rent for the professional office space may be within reason, based upon the rent comps provided by the PAO; however, the overall approach appears highly subjective. PETITIONER's EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing & did submit evidence for consideration. The PET relies only on the Cost Approach to value. The PET does note that there is a separate building [ subject to a land lease] associated with the hospital that was moved over to a TPP hearing; thus, that building/asset is not a part of this hearing. While I understand that each assessment year stands on its own, the PET noted that for 2016 when the other building was included in the assessment, the entire assessed value was close to $70. 707M. However, in 2017 when that building got placed on a separate TPP tax bill for $23.018M, the remaining (subject) portion was assessed at approximately $70.916M for a combined assessment of $93.935M. In fact, the subject's 2018 TRIM notice apparently was for $72,528,974, and the PAO lowered it to $66,312,204 [ coming into this hearing] after the PET complained of the year-to-year treatment of the combined assets. At this hearing, the PET submitted evidence of the breakdown of the subject (and related MOB) assessment dating back to 2015 when they were formerly combined. Based upon these factors and year-to-year assessment changes for the aggregate assets, one cannot blame the PET for filing this petition, as well as the TPP separate hearing scheduled later for the MOB. In fact, had the properties remained on the same folio from 2016 to 201 7, the maximum 10% cap would have applied to the assessment. For some reason or oversight, the owner of the property apparently did not appeal the subject for 2017. 2018 is the first year Mr. Tucker has been involved with this asset. In reference to the PET' s Marshall Valuation evidence submitted at the hearing, the PET provides Class A construction calculator cost data, depreciation information (with 'condition' (not quality) descriptions by Marshall. I stressed that the information provide from Section 97, page 5 of Marshall was specifically 'condition' and not quality, as the calculator costs per SF on page 24 of Section 15 is QUALITY (not condition) data. The PET appears to be confusing the concepts of 'condition' vs. 'quality' with respect to Marshall Valuation. The PET's Marshall data accepted at the hearing also includes page 13 from section 97 of Marshall, which indicates general hospitals (good & excellent) of Class A construction should have a typical life expectancy of 50 years. Based upon the PAO's photographs provided and the apparent degree of overall quality, I give most weight to a 50-year life. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET argues for a 40 average physical life for depreciation purposes, as opposed for the PAO' s use of 70 years. The PET presents a roster and analysis of 80 closed hospitals across the US, Marshall valuation data (35-40 years), and the American Hospital Association's estimate of 40 years. Thus, the PET applies 45% physical depreciation (i.e. 18 effective age/40 year physical life) to the RCN (inclusive of profit) of $74,385,600, or $33,473,520 of depreciation. That results in $40,912,080 for the depreciated value of the improvements, plus the land assessment of $12,568,815, or a final Cost Approach estimate (before any Cost of Sale consideration) of $53,480,000. 2018-00440 Page 3 of 5 RULING: In fairness to the PET and owner of the property, there should be some equitable year-to-year treatment of the overall assessments associated with these collective hospital assets. This means the subject & (now) separated medical office building (MEB) that now has its separate TPP hearing scheduled for 2018. This ruling & hearing is NOT for the separate MOB, yet I may be the magistrate to eventually hear it for 2018. I have attached an exhibit to this ruling that best explains the logic, reasoning, and calculations associated with a Cost Approach using different portions of data from both the PAO & the PET. The PET failed to use a market-based land estimate and impact fees, yet the PAO did provide sufficiently good estimates for both, which are included. The PET's estimate ofRCN appears more reasonable. However, I base depreciation upon a 50-year life using the depreciation from the Marshall evidence provided by the PET at the hearing & the 20-year effective age provided by the PAO. This results in 40% depreciation applied. A 15% COS deduction is applied to the subtotal of $61,672,581, resulting in a figure of $52,421,694 applicable to the subject only (not the MOB of the TPP hearing to be heard separately). Please refer to the attached exhibit. This appears to offer far more 'equitable' combined treatment of the assets associated with the whole hospital operation relative to the (then) combined assessment they had in 2016, subject to inflation and/or appreciation. The weight of evidence regarding the physical life topic favors the PET when it comes to refuting the PAO's 70-year life estimate. This is a material issue in this hearing, given the magnitude of dollars involved. Relief is granted to $52,421,694, based upon the attached calculations. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00440: 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 failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence fails to 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Seciton 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2018-00440 Page 4 of 5 Petition #2018-440 Special Magistrate's Ruling & Calculations PET's RCN from Cost Approach Age I Life 20 I 50 = 40.0% +PAO's 'Market' land value estimate +PAO's Impact Fee Estimate (not included by PET) Less C.O.S. Discount per DR-493 Special Magistrate's Reduction for Subject Non-subject MOB TPP 2018 assessment (Prior to any VAB hearing) Combined '18 Assessment of subject & non-subject MOB 2018-00440 $74,385,600 ($29. 754.240) $44,631.360 + $14,364,360 + $2,676,861 Subtotal 15.00% $61,672,581 {$9,250.887) $52,421,694 ------------------------ + $23,648,948 $76,070,642 Page 5 of 5 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00442 Parcel ID 94150000115 Petitioner name TOMMY TUCKER The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 6101 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34119 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 23,648,948.00 23,648,948.00 23,648,948.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 23,648,948.00 23,648,948.00 23,648,948.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 23,648,948.00 23,648,948.00 23,648,948.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/06/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axicn D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00442 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00442: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dan Demorett (Director Tangible Personal Property) & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Tommy Tucker, Director Property Tax) with the Altus Group US, Inc. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a medical office building (MOB) that is attached to & a part of the hospital complex known as "Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge" (formerly Cleveland Clinic). The subject was built in 1998 & is located at 6101 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. The subject is located at the NE quadrant of the I-75 / Pine Ridge Road intersection; thus, it is easily accessible. The subject has an adjusted building size of 135,174 SF situated upon a PUD-zoned LEASED site described within 'Exhibit A' of the lease as having 40,877 SF. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE: This hearing is atypical, due to the fact that the subject is the vertical building portion taxed as TPP ( due to the building being located on leased land), yet ( for practical purposes) this is realistically more of a 'real property' situation; whereby, the land and building components of this 'subject building' happen to fall under two different V AB petitions during 2018. I separately heard [ with this same Petitioner] the larger hospital complex ( with ALL underlying land) within Petition #440 on October 17, 2018, & relief was granted in the ruling for that petition. It was discussed during that hearing that this petition 2018-442 would come up for a separate hearing. In order to keep things in context and to keep the combined assessments equitable & reasonable, it is necessary to consider both portions (petitions) that describe or deal with this health care complex that was ( for financing purposes) separated by a lease. Therefore, I re-reviewed my ruling & evidence for Petition 2018-440 as I consider the evidence and write the final ruling for this Petition #2018-442 to prevent any double accounting (or double taxation) of the same property interests so that equitable and reasonable assessments exist for both portions. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO has a 50-page package of Florida Statutes and DOR procedures related to their role & duties in the assessment process. The package was labeled "2018 Tax Roll Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data". This information pertains to all the PAO's VAB hearings & does not specifically relate to evidence unique to this subject property. It is not necessary to get into the details of DOR procedures relating to the 67 property appraiser offices in this ruling, yet the package is provided to explain the PAO's compliance with Florida law. As for this specific hearing, the PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Income Approach to support the contested just value of $23,648,948. The PAO [ and the PET] did not consider the Sales Comparison Approach relevant. The PAO also provided a location map, zoning map, aerial photograph, building sketches ( 5 floors total), land/ improved sales map, land sales grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation cost data, Income Approach, copy of the subject's 12/22/2016 deed, legal description for the land of 40,877 SF dedicated (but not conveyed) to this structure, exterior photographs, interior photographs, lease comparable sheets from CoStar, Valbridge 'SW Florida Office Snapshot' article, Valbridge National Cap Rate exhibit, CoStar's SW Florida building deliveries (i.e. completed new construction), CoStar SW Florida lease rates (Class A, B, & C), county impact fee calculations, and fire impact fee calculations. 2018-00442 Page 2 of 8 While both the PET & PAO considered the Sales Comparison Approach, neither prepared one. I would argue that since the subject is a professional medical office building (MOB), sales of other professional MOB's and good quality non-MOB's could still have been considered, and then there could have been a deduction for each sale's estimated land value to get a reconciled indication of the building value applicable to this hearing. If it was proven that enough sales existed in Collier County of comparable quality, such sales could have been highly relevant to this hearing. But, as stated, neither party to this hearing prepared a Sales Comparison Approach. PRIOR SALES OF THE SUBJECT: The most recent sale of the subject was for $26,800,000 on December 29, 2016. That sale was for the building only, not the land; thus, that sale is consistent with the subject building ( only) of this V AB hearing. The 2018 subject assessment of $23,648,948 equates to 88.2% of the prior subject sale. As explained by the PET, that prior sale was a 'sale/lease-back' arrangement intended to raise money for the hospital; thus, it is not a pure sale in the normal sense. The PAO notes an earlier sale involving the subject was in 2006 for $98M, yet that sale involved other related hospital assets that are not specifically the subject of this hearing. That prior sale included real property that was part of the assets that were considered separately in prior VAB hearing 2018-440. In the Cost Approach, the PAO did estimate land value for the purposes of the subject's 'footprint' [indicated in the deed] of 40,877 SF, and to assist in preparing a deduction for the Income Approach. The PAO estimated land value at $12/SF X 40,877 = $490,524. The land value was supported & explained in the prior hearing #2018-440 using the same $12/SF figure for the entire (non-subject) site. At the hearing, the PAO provided a corrected version of their Cost Approach originally submitted. For the subject's depreciated RCN (replacement cost new), the PAO correctly added the depreciated value of the improvements for the whole gross building area of 135,174 SF ($22,283,251- corrected), plus 10% entrepreneurial profit ($2,228,325-corrected), & impact fees ($4,167,935), resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $28,689,000-corrected (without the land). It appears the PAO [incorrectly] then tries to deduct land value for a 'taxable value' of$28,198,476 in his intended corrective version, but that is not the proper way to handle this Cost Approach. It would appear that the $24,511,576 figure (rounded to $24,512,000) is the depreciated building value that should be used, given the impact fees 'run with the LAND', not the building. In other words, the impact fees should not be attributed to the building, since they do not depreciate. Thus, my interpretation of the PAO' s Cost Approach relevant value applicable to this hearing should be $24,512,000 [plus lease-up costs], which excludes land value & it excludes impact fees. One major component the PAO fails to consider relates to the lease-up costs associated with getting to the subject's current level of occupancy. This is a significant error for a building of the subject's substantial size, as the figure is in the millions of dollars that should have been included in a properly prepared Cost Approach. (The PET also makes this same error of omission.) The error understates the true costs. In the PAO's Marshall Valuation support, I noticed the PAO ran the cost program as a 4-story building. The subject MOB has 5 stories as shown by the PAO's floor plans. This likely would have increased the costs slightly, but perhaps not significantly. 2018-00442 Page 3 of 8 In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $23,112,476 without the land. That value is based upon 124,884 SF (for the first 4 of the 5 floors only) at $28/SF, 7% vacancy, 20% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 8% applied to NOi of $1,888,246. The land footprint of 40,877 SF @ $12/SF = $490,524 is then deducted, resulting in a building figure of $23,112,476. Using the logic from the paragraph above, one could argue that the impact fees ( that run with the land) should also be deducted before arriving at the subject's building value via the Income Approach. I do note that the PAO is not giving any valuation credit to the subject's 5th floor with 10,290 SF of space. Just because it may be vacant and has a more depreciated build-out does not necessarily mean that it has no value from an Income Approach perspective. Regardless, that is the way the PAO presented his Income Approach. While I consider the PAO's presentation & math imperfect, it does provide enough support to establish the presumption of correctness. PETITIONER's EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing & did submit evidence for consideration. The PET relies only on the Cost Approach & Income Approach. While I understand that each assessment year stands on its own, the PET noted that for 2016 [ when the other hospital building & all the land area] was included in the assessment, the entire assessed value was close to $70. 707M. However, in 2017 when the subject's MOB got placed on a separate TPP tax bill for $23.018M, the remaining (hospital+ land) portion was assessed at approximately $70.916M for a combined assessment of $93.935M. In fact, the hospital+ land 2018 TRIM notice apparently was for $72,528,974, and the PAO lowered it to $66,312,204 [coming into this hearing] after the PET complained of the year-to-year treatment of the combined assets. At the hospital's hearing, the PET submitted evidence of the breakdown of the subject MOB & hospital assessment data dating back to 2015 when they were formerly combined. Based upon these factors and year-to-year assessment changes for the aggregate assets, one cannot blame the PET for filing this TPP petition, as well as the separate hospital + land case already heard. In fact, had the properties remained on the same folio from 2016 to 2017, the maximum 10% cap would have applied to the assessment. For some reason or oversight, the owner of the property apparently did not appeal the subject for 2017. 2018 is the first year Mr. Tucker has been involved with this asset. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET considers the first 3 floors of 91,037 SF to be of 'excellent' quality@ $285/SF replacement cost new (RCN), while the PET considers the 4th floor to be of 'general office' space of 'good' quality at $210/SF RCN. The PET's figures result in a weighted average of $265/SF RCN, plus 10% for entrepreneurial profit for a combined total RCN of $35,382,853. As part of the $265/SF, the PET has $1 I/SF included for impact fees, which I suggest should NOT be part of these costs, as those fees 'run with the land'. The PET then deducts for $1,400,000 for "deferred maintenance", as well as $75/SF x 9,384 SF for 'curable physical depreciation', or $703,800. Thus, the PET makes a combined short-lived deduction of $2,103,800. The PET then applies a long-lived 35% depreciation factor to the remaining $33,279,053 of building RCN, for long-lived depreciation of $11,980,459. Thus, after deducting long- lived & curable depreciation, the resulting depreciated value of the improvements is 2018-00442 Page 4 of 8 $21.3M, less 15% COS= $18.IM (rounded). The PET gives less weight to his Cost Approach. It should be noted that the PAO & PET also used different square foot areas. The PET admitted on the record that he should have used the larger building area as used by the PAO, instead of the 'rentable' area. The PET's total equates to 121,382 SF, while the PAO's 5 floor plans equate to a total of 135,174 SF. Had the PE T's Cost Approach been properly prepared with the gross building area & considered the appropriate components, it would appear some [but not all] of the errors tend to cancel each other. I have not spent a great deal of time to carefully reconstruct the PET's Cost Approach, because the PET gives it less weight. One major component the PET fails to consider are the costs associated with getting to the subject's current level of occupancy. This is a significant error for a building of the subject's substantial size, as the figure is in the millions of dollars. I also need to add the point that the PAO also failed to ADD the substantial extra costs to get to the attained level of substantial occupancy. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects rent at $26.50/SF, vacancy at 10%, expenses (without taxes) at $9/SF, and applies a loaded OAR of 8.29% [7.0% + 1.29% millage rate] to NOi of $1,802,523, resulting in a value indictor of $21,743,338, less land value of $4.4M (figure revised at the hearing), less 15% COS = $14,767,000 (revised@ hearing). It is noted that the PET is assuming a larger LTB (land-to-building ratio) that would be necessary to support the subject's parking requirements, rather than strictly use the (inadequate) building footprint called for in the sale/lease-back's legal description of the site area. The PAO used the latter (smaller) area. The PET revised his land value, based upon my prior ruling of $12/SF, given the PAO had actual land value support in the prior hearing #2018-440. In the PAO's rebuttal, the PAO notes the PET failed to justify the $26.50/SF rent from market evidence [the pet referred to some recent leases within the subject]. The PAO notes the PET's vacancy of 10% is unsupported, 7% cap rate is unsupported, and the PET failed to provide any historical operating expense data. The PAO also notes a variety of SF (i.e. size) differences, primarily due to differences in 'rentable' vs. gross building areas. The PAO also states the PET's 121,382 SF may not include all building areas. RULING: The subject (TP-442 for the MOB) and related TP-440 (for the adjacent hospital) reflect large and substantial assets. The fact that the properties were split into separate folios (petitions) after the sale/lease-back in 2016 created some assessment issues that could have been handled in a more equitable fashion when considering year- to-year aggregate increases in the combined components of these two properties. Another issue relates to the customary way each asset component is normally valued. Generally, the Cost Approach is highly applicable to the hospital component. Large multi-tenant medical office buildings (MOB's) can be valued several ways, but often the Income Approach would be the most desirable method when operating at stabilized occupancy. Such multi-tenant professional office buildings do sell in the market, as well. Thus, the Sales Comparison Approach can still be a very valid approach when good sales data exists. The Cost Approach can be supportive, particularly when the building is relatively new or in very good condition. Typically, the Cost Approach is based upon 'gross' building area calculations, while the Income Approach ( and usually 2018-00442 Page 5 of 8 the Sales Comparison Approach) would be based upon the 'rentable' areas. For this hearing of the MOB (i.e. TP-442), the PAO tended to use 'gross' building area calculations in his 2 approaches, while the PET used 'rentable' area calculations in his 2 approaches. This created problems, given the Cost Approach should be based upon 'gross' figures, while the Income Approach should normally be based upon 'rentable' areas. To add to the confusion, all the MOB 's land was already included & considered in TP-440 (which was granted substantial relief in my ruling of that petition), yet a land area adjustment needs to be considered (i.e. deducted) within the Income Approaches by both the PAO & PET. To make matters even more confusing, the subject's lease specifically identifies a footprint area applicable to the MOB, yet that footprint area of the site is (in reality) insufficient for the amount of NRA being supported in the MOB. Another issue to this hearing is the fact that both the PAO & PET very possibly could have included sales of good quality professional/medical office buildings in the county ( or region), yet neither included the Sales Comparison Approach. Such sales could have helped, particularly if they were MOB's located on (or close to) a medical campus environment. Both the PAO & PET had various deficiencies in the way they set up their approaches to value for this class of large, multi-tenant asset. The most simplistic and straightforward way to address a reasonable assessment for the subject from the information provided is to summarize a Cost Approach, while also adding approximate figures for certain deficient items not provided by either party. The land component related to the subject was ALREADY CONSIDERED in TP-440 for the hospital and grounds; thus, the land component is not relevant. Additionally, the impact fees 'run with the land' (not the building); thus, they are substantial and not a part of the MOB's petition or assessment. Several key components of a Cost Approach are included (at least within reason). NOI loss during the lease-up, commissions/promo/advertising costs, and taxes on the land during construction (likely to be paid by the builder of the structure, even though the land in this case is owned by the landlord/owner of the hospital). In other words, an operational multi-tenant building has a variety of significant costs associated with it to get it to and advanced level of occupancy on the assessment date. I have attached an exhibit to this ruling that best explains the logic, reasoning, and calculations associated with a Cost Approach using different portions of data from both the PAO, the PET, and logical reasoning. As demonstrated, the subject's assessment of $23,648,948 is within reason of the $27,753,038 figure, less COS consideration. Another to this hearing relates the far more 'equitable' combined treatment of the assets associated with the 'whole' hospital/MOB operation relative to the (then) combined assessment they had in 2016, subject to inflation and/or appreciation. I have summarized the 2016, 2017 (not appealed), and concluded 2018 assessments (based upon my lower ruling for the hospital). The 2017 combined assessment appears grossly excessive and was the result of the split of the assets when the sale/lease-back lease was created. The owner/PET failed to realize what was going on at the time; thus, failed to file a V AB appeal for 2017 apparently. However, for 2018, the combined assessment of these assets is now back on track and at least reasonably 'equitable' relative to the combined assessment of 2016, as reflected by an annual compound rate of increase of approximately 3.72% (similar to 2018-00442 Page 6 of 8 inflation). Thus, the 'combined' asset was given relief within the hospital's petition (TP-440), and there is no evidence of an additional need to apply more of a reduction to this MOB petition (TP-442). The PET failed to overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The subject's assessment for the MOB is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00442: 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. 2018-00442 Page 7 of 8 Petition #2018-442 (Medical Office Building -MOB) Special Magistrate's Summary of the Medical Office Building {MOB) Costs PAO's depreciated value of building PAO revised@ hearing> PAO revised@ hearing> PA O's estimate of 10% Ent. profit NOi ioss during lease-up (est.) Commissions,promo/advertising,during lease-up (est.) Taxes on land during construction (est. see below) PAO's land value Years $14,364,360 ) 2.0 X Est.MIiiage (per PET) 1.29% less COS 15.0% TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOB (LESS COS)> PAO'S 2018 JUST VALUE (BUILDING ONLY) $22,283,251 $2,228,325 $2,000,000 $870,000 $371,462 ------------------------ $27,753,038 {$4.162.956) UPHELD $23,590,083 vs. $23,648,948 Conclusion: The PAO's just value for TP 2018-442 is within reason & is upheld. Test of Reasonablenss in Year-to-year Assessments: Hospital portion> + Med.Office Bldg.> combined assessments (both portions) for 2018> combined assessments (both portions) for 2017> combined assessments (both portions) for 2016> Approximate annual compound rate of change from 2016 to 2018> 2018-00442 $52,421,694 <TP 440 (based upon my reduction) $23 648 948 <TP 442 (no change to this petiton) $76,070,642 $93,935,000 <not appealed after split in 2 folios $70,707,000 Rd. (all under 1 folio in 2016) 103.72% Thus, equitable relative to inflation. Page 8 of 8 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00492 Parcel ID 56787600007 Petitioner name SYLVESTER, ANDREW LAUREN The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent 0 other, explain: Property 358 MEADOWLARKCT address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 908,405.00 908,405.00 908,405.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 908,405.00 908,405.00 908,405.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 858,405.00 858,405.00 858,405.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [ll Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00492 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00492: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00492: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did not show to the hearing however did provide evidence for the SM review. The PAO provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $908,405. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO' s report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of the purchase of the property in August 2017 for $737,500 and a one page grid from an appraisal done on the property in 2017 which was deemed not credible due to a lack of information and data typically provided in an acceptable appraisal. The methodology lacked credibility which may have been better clarified had the petitioner showed for the hearing. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2018-00492 Page 2 of 4 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO' s value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00492 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00492: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00492 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $908,405 is presumed correct. 2018-00492 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00497 Petitioner name TERRI PATTON, MAI The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 00388400005 Property 2001 TAMIAMI TRL E address NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 294,912.00 294,912.00 294,912.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 294,912.00 294,912.00 294,912.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 294,912.00 294,912.00 294,912.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196 .031 (7), F .S .) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/05/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00497 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00497: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but was represented by Terri Patton, MAI. The PET did timely submit evidence for this hearing, did check the box on the petition for non-attendance. The PET also sent an email indicating it would be fine to hear petitions 497, 498, & 499 during the 1 pm time frame. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 3 contiguous folio numbers; thus, this hearing is the combination of 3 petitions ( 497, 498, & 499) heard together with individual just values of $294,912, $244,100, and 627,324, respectively. The combined subject has 12,198 SF of adjusted area. The subject's address is 2001 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. The subject was built in 1962 & 1974 and they are situated upon a site of 53,453 SF, or 1.23 acres. SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: There has not been a sale of the subject in more than 15 years. PAO TESTIMONY /EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $1,166,336 (all 3 folios combined). The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), location map, zoning map, building sketch, exterior/interior building photos, street scene, prior 1979 deed (with legal description), land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Marshall Valuation cost support, Sales Comparison grid of 9 sales, improved sales map, land sales map, Income Approach, improved sale photographs/CoStar back-up data, CoStar lease comparables, chart of freestanding lease comps, county-wide retail lease information, charts of self- storage data/sales/cap rates, Valbridge 'Retail Snapshot' article for SW Florida (with occupancy, rent & net absorption data), & impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $22.00/SF X 53,453 SF = $1,175,966. The land value estimate was based upon 9 land sales [not 10, as one was a duplicate error] presented in a grid and mapped by location. The PAO presents many different sales along Tamiami Trail East with the same zoning, particularly Land Sale #7 ($22.90/SF) directly opposite the subject. The average of the sales is $22.14/SF. Land Sales #4 ($19.83/SF) & $6 ($22.01/SF) are located on Davis Road, not far to the northeast of the subject. They also share the subject's same zoning classification. Impact fees were estimated at $262,292. The PAO also provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($267,210) & site improvements at $24,078, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $1,730,000. Overall, the Cost Approach figures look very reasonable and lend support to the PAO' s assessment. It is very important to note that the sum of the land value ($1,176,000) & impact fees ($262,292) that 'run with the land' equates to $1,438,292. The combined just value being contested ($1,166,336) is just 81.1 % of the land value + impact fees even without any building value consideration. Thus, the PAO's well supported land value + impact fees are more than enough to support the assessment. The basic building block of H&BU starts with the land value 'as if vacant'. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 9 improved sales. Eight of the 9 2018-00497 Page 2 of 4 sales are located within a reasonable distance of the subject, while Improved Sale #6 is further north on Tamiami Trail, yet it is most similar in terms of building size & FAR (i.e. building-to-land ratio) with an indicator of $224.43/SF. The mean indicator/SF is $157.39. The PAO concludes $140/SF X 12,198 SF= $1,708,000 (rounded) via this approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $1,570,000 (rounded), based upon estimated rent of $15/SF for storage units, $14/SF for the store building/storage, 5% vacancy, 30% expenses, and applies a loaded OAR of7.5% to the NOi of $117,716. The PAO does provide for his inputs in the supporting evidence submitted. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by his presentation. The strongest support is provided by the very well supported land value + impact fees, which easily supports the PAO's just value. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing but did submit timely evidence (Income Approach) for consideration. The PET submitted a cover letter requesting a just value of $1,000,000. That cover letter also asserts the subject "suffers from some functional obsolescence", yet there is no support, documentation, or quantification of any functional obsolescence in the PET's evidence. The PET presents a 'Facility Utilization Summary Report', 7-year profit & loss statement, RealtyRates.com self-storage rates for the 2nd Quarter of 2018, and an Income Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $995,457, based upon estimated storage rent for 80 units at $17.97/SF, other income of$3,097, warehouse rent of $8.50/ SF, 15% vacancy, 40% expenses, and applies a cap rate of 8.5% to the NOi of$84,614. RULING: Based upon my review of the evidence, I give strongest consideration to the PAO's very well supported land value+ impact fees, which equals $1,438,292. The combined just value being contested ($1,166,336) is just 81.1 % of the land value+ impact fees even without any building value consideration. This is also support for the H&BU, which begins with the estimation of land value. The PET fails to address land value or H&BU, which is one of the 8 criteria ofF.S. 193.011. As another issue, Terri Patton, MAI is an appraiser and a value conclusion is provided without a signed certification. It appears the PET submitted an appraisal that is NOT in conformance with USP AP, which is a violation of Florida law & also a violation of the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The PET failed to overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness. The PAO' s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00497: 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 2018-00497 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00497 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 IZ] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00498 Petitioner name TERRI PATTON, MAI The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 77510120005 Property address NAPLES, FL Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 244,100.00 244,100.00 244,100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 244,100.00 244,100.00 244,100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 244,100.00 244,100.00 244,100.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision SiQnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00498 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00498: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but was represented by Terri Patton, MAI. The PET did timely submit evidence for this hearing, did check the box on the petition for non-attendance. The PET also sent an email indicating it would be fine to hear petitions 497, 498, & 499 during the 1 pm time frame. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 3 contiguous folio numbers; thus, this hearing is the combination of 3 petitions ( 497, 498, & 499) heard together with individual just values of $294,912, $244,100, and 627,324, respectively. The combined subject has 12,198 SF of adjusted area. The subject's address is 2001 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. The subject was built in 1962 & 1974 and they are situated upon a site of 53,453 SF, or 1.23 acres. SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: There has not been a sale of the subject in more than 15 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $1,166,336 (all 3 folios combined). The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), location map, zoning map, building sketch, exterior/interior building photos, street scene, prior 1979 deed (with legal description), land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Marshall Valuation cost support, Sales Comparison grid of 9 sales, improved sales map, land sales map, Income Approach, improved sale photographs/CoStar back-up data, CoStar lease comparables, chart of freestanding lease comps, county-wide retail lease information, charts of self- storage data/sales/cap rates, Valbridge 'Retail Snapshot' article for SW Florida (with occupancy, rent & net absorption data), & impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $22.00/SF X 53,453 SF= $1,175,966. The land value estimate was based upon 9 land sales [not 10, as one was a duplicate error] presented in a grid and mapped by location. The PAO presents many different sales along Tamiami Trail East with the same zoning, particularly Land Sale #7 ($22.90/SF) directly opposite the subject. The average of the sales is $22.14/SF. Land Sales #4 ($19.83/SF) & $6 ($22.01/SF) are located on Davis Road, not far to the northeast of the subject. They also share the subject's same zoning classification. Impact fees were estimated at $262,292. The PAO also provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($267,210) & site improvements at $24,078, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $1,730,000. Overall, the Cost Approach figures look very reasonable and lend support to the PAO' s assessment. It is very important to note that the sum of the land value ($1,176,000) & impact fees ($262,292) that 'run with the land' equates to $1,438,292. The combined just value being contested ($1,166,336) is just 81.1 % of the land value + impact fees even without any building value consideration. Thus, the PAO's well supported land value + impact fees are more than enough to support the assessment. The basic building block of H&BU starts with the land value 'as if vacant'. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 9 improved sales. Eight of the 9 2018-00498 Page 2 of 4 sales are located within a reasonable distance of the subject, while Improved Sale #6 is further north on Tamiami Trail, yet it is most similar in terms of building size & FAR (i.e. building-to-land ratio) with an indicator of $224.43/SF. The mean indicator/SF is $157.39. The PAO concludes $140/SF X 12,198 SF= $1,708,000 (rounded) via this approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $1,570,000 (rounded), based upon estimated rent of $15/SF for storage units, $14/SF for the store building/storage, 5% vacancy, 30% expenses, and applies a loaded OAR of7.5% to the NOI of$117,716. The PAO does provide for his inputs in the supporting evidence submitted. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by his presentation. The strongest support is provided by the very well supported land value + impact fees, which easily supports the PAO' s just value. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing but did submit timely evidence (Income Approach) for consideration. The PET submitted a cover letter requesting a just value of $1,000,000. That cover letter also asserts the subject "suffers from some functional obsolescence", yet there is no support, documentation, or quantification of any functional obsolescence in the PET's evidence. The PET presents a 'Facility Utilization Summary Report', 7-year profit & loss statement, RealtyRates.com self-storage rates for the 2nd Quarter of 2018, and an Income Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $995,457, based upon estimated storage rent for 80 units at $17.97/SF, other income of $3,097, warehouse rent of $8.50/ SF, 15% vacancy, 40% expenses, and applies a cap rate of 8.5% to the NOI of $84,614. RULING: Based upon my review of the evidence, I give strongest consideration to the PAO's very well supported land value+ impact fees, which equals $1,438,292. The combined just value being contested ($1,166,336) is just 81.1 % of the land value+ impact fees even without any building value consideration. This is also support for the H&BU, which begins with the estimation of land value. The PET fails to address land value or H&BU, which is one of the 8 criteria ofF.S. 193.011. As another issue, Terri Patton, MAI is an appraiser and a value conclusion is provided without a signed certification. It appears the PET submitted an appraisal that is NOT in conformance with USPAP, which is a violation of Florida law & also a violation of the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The PET failed to overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness. The PAO' s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00498: 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 2018-00498 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00498 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00499 Petitioner name TERRI PATTON, MAI The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 77510160007 Property address NAPLES, FL Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 627,324.00 627,324.00 627,324.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 433,308.00 433,308.00 433,308.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 433,308.00 433,308.00 433,308.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxini:i authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. IZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/05/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00499 Page I of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00499: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but was represented by Terri Patton, MAI. The PET did timely submit evidence for this hearing, did check the box on the petition for non-attendance. The PET also sent an email indicating it would be fine to hear petitions 497, 498, & 499 during the 1 pm time frame. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 3 contiguous folio numbers; thus, this hearing is the combination of 3 petitions ( 497, 498, & 499) heard together with individual just values of $294,912, $244,100, and 627,324, respectively. The combined subject has 12,198 SF of adjusted area. The subject's address is 2001 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. The subject was built in 1962 & 1974 and they are situated upon a site of 53,453 SF, or 1.23 acres. SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: There has not been a sale of the subject in more than 15 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$1,166,336 (all 3 folios combined). The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), location map, zoning map, building sketch, exterior/interior building photos, street scene, prior 1979 deed (with legal description), land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Marshall Valuation cost support, Sales Comparison grid of 9 sales, improved sales map, land sales map, Income Approach, improved sale photographs/CoStar back-up data, CoStar lease comparables, chart of freestanding lease comps, county-wide retail lease information, charts of self- storage data/sales/cap rates, Valbridge 'Retail Snapshot' article for SW Florida (with occupancy, rent & net absorption data), & impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $22.00/SF X 53,453 SF = $1,175,966. The land value estimate was based upon 9 land sales [not 10, as one was a duplicate error] presented in a grid and mapped by location. The PAO presents many different sales along Tamiami Trail East with the same zoning, particularly Land Sale #7 ($22.90/SF) directly opposite the subject. The average of the sales is $22.14/SF. Land Sales #4 ($19.83/SF) & $6 ($22.01/SF) are located on Davis Road, not far to the northeast of the subject. They also share the subject's same zoning classification. Impact fees were estimated at $262,292. The PAO also provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($267,210) & site improvements at $24,078, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $1,730,000. Overall, the Cost Approach figures look very reasonable and lend support to the PAO' s assessment. It is very important to note that the sum of the land value ($1,176,000) & impact fees ($262,292) that 'run with the land' equates to $1,438,292. The combined just value being contested ($1,166,336) is just 81.1 % of the land value + impact fees even without any building value consideration. Thus, the PAO's well supported land value + impact fees are more than enough to support the assessment. The basic building block of H&BU starts with the land value 'as if vacant'. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 9 improved sales. Eight of the 9 2018-00499 Page 2 of 4 sales are located within a reasonable distance of the subject, while Improved Sale #6 is further north on Tamiami Trail, yet it is most similar in terms of building size & FAR (i.e. building-to-land ratio) with an indicator of $224.43/SF. The mean indicator/SF is $157.39. The PAO concludes $140/SF X 12,198 SF= $1,708,000 (rounded) via this approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $1,570,000 (rounded), based upon estimated rent of $15/SF for storage units, $14/SF for the store building/storage, 5% vacancy, 30% expenses, and applies a loaded OAR of7.5% to the NOI of $117,716. The PAO does provide for his inputs in the supporting evidence submitted. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by his presentation. The strongest support is provided by the very well supported land value + impact fees, which easily supports the PAO's just value. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing but did submit timely evidence (Income Approach) for consideration. The PET submitted a cover letter requesting a just value of $1,000,000. That cover letter also asserts the subject "suffers from some functional obsolescence", yet there is no support, documentation, or quantification of any functional obsolescence in the PET's evidence. The PET presents a 'Facility Utilization Summary Report', 7-year profit & loss statement, RealtyRates.com self-storage rates for the 2nd Quarter of 2018, and an Income Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $995,457, based upon estimated storage rent for 80 units at $17.97/SF, other income of $3,097, warehouse rent of $8.50/ SF, 15% vacancy, 40% expenses, and applies a cap rate of 8.5% to the NOI of $84,614. RULING: Based upon my review of the evidence, I give strongest consideration to the PAO's very well supported land value+ impact fees, which equals $1,438,292. The combined just value being contested ($1,166,336) is just 81.1 % of the land value+ impact fees even without any building value consideration. This is also support for the H&BU, which begins with the estimation of land value. The PET fails to address land value or H&BU, which is one of the 8 criteria of F.S. 193.011. As another issue, Terri Patton, MAI is an appraiser and a value conclusion is provided without a signed certification. It appears the PET submitted an appraisal that is NOT in conformance with USP AP, which is a violation of Florida law & also a violation of the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The PET failed to overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness. The PAO' s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00499: 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 2018-00499 Page 3 of 4 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. 2018-00499 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00503 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 00390080002 Property address 3451 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 9,063,572.00 9,063,572.00 9,063,572.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,063,572.00 9,063,572.00 9,063,572.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,063,572.00 9,063,572.00 9,063,572.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) ReasonsforDec~ion Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/26/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00503 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00503: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner is Mr. Jerry Aucoin. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Wal Mart 'big box' store. The subject was built in 1993. It is located at 3451 Tamiami Trail East in Naples (just southeast of the Collier County Government Center). The structure has an adjusted building size of 126,837 SF situated upon a site of 749,632 SF (17.21 acres). SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: There has not been a sale of the subject in more than 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $9,063,572, or $71.46/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), location map, zoning map, building sketch, exterior/interior building photos, prior 2009 deed (with legal description), land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Marshall Valuation cost support, Sales Comparison grid of 7 sales, improved sales map, land sales map, Income Approach, improved sale photographs/CoStar back-up data, CoStar lease comparables, article about Oakes Farms new organic food store, chart of big box data/cap rates/sales, Valbridge 'Retail Snapshot' article for SW Florida (with occupancy, asking rent & net absorption data), CoStar SW Florida retail statistics/rates/submarket statistics, & impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO had several typos & math errors, yet the following figures are the corrected numbers. [Note: Some of the verbal testimony by the PAO's staff to correct the written record was also wrong. The correct site area is 749,632 SF, not 587,674 SF.] The PAO estimated land value at $12/SF ($8,995,584), plus $2,727,357 of impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $11,722,941, which is 129.3% of the contested just value). The land value estimate was based upon the 8 commercial land sale indicators that date back to 2014 for sites similar in size to the subject. I give strong consideration to Land Sale #1 at $11.95/SF in a developing area further east of I-75 that is the only sale that closed in 2017. Also, Land Sale #4 sold in 2016 for $12.09/SF on Davis Boulevard (not far from the I-75 toll booth). The average of the 8 sales is $13.77/ SF with a median of $12/SF. The PAO's estimated $12/SF for the subject appears reasonable. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($4,820,534) & site improvements/paving at $432,476, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $16,976,000 (rounded). The PAO could have, but does not, provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and minor soft costs. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. Conversely, the PAO does not make any deduction related to functional obsolescence related to the diminished demand for large 'big box' stores, as would be argued by the PET. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales to support the subject's $71.46/SF assessment. Two of the sales (#1 & #5) are in Lee County, while 2018-00503 Page 2 of 4 Sale #6 ( a former Dillards in a mall that sold back in late 2014 for $103. 83/SF) is in Sarasota County. Sales #2 & #5 are also leased fee sales; thus, the terms of the lease influenced their prices of $169.85/SF & $152.93, respectively. While Sale #1 was on Tamiami Trail in Ft. Myers (i.e. in Lee County), it was a fee simple sale of a former Home Depot of 126,024 SF (per the PAO's size provided) for $63.48/SF. Lee County is often considered inferior to Collier County; thus, the subject's assessment for a very similar size building at $71.46/SF may well be reasonable when compared to Sale # 1. Sales #3 (dark Sports Authority@ $235.42/SF) and #7 (a dark Albertsons that sold for $79.98/SF) are two fee simple sales that tend to support the subject's assessment, yet they both have less than half the subject's building size. Thus, it is hard to make direct comparisons on limited recent data of comparable 'big box' fee simple sales, particularly within Collier County. Not that many sales take place of this size, and many (but not all) are stores that have gone dark. Comparing Collier County sales to other counties can also be difficult for big box transactions. I consider the PAO' s Sales Comparison Approach to be inconclusive, given a wide range of data exists. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $9,559,000 (rounded), based upon a $7/SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 15% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% applied to the NOI of $716,946. Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides rent comparables, cap rate information, & vacancy data. The PAO emphasizes data for freestanding retail stores using both CoStar and confidential information from the PAO's files. However, highly comparable 'big box' rental data for buildings of the subject's size is very limited. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good support via the three traditional approaches to value, but mainly due to the strength of good land value data in the Cost Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET's cover page summarizes the subject's physical and assessment breakdown. The cover page also indicates the PET is requesting a just value of$7,615,740, or $60/SF of adjusted building area. Mr. Aucoin is very knowledgeable in this class of retail asset, given he is an employee of Wal Mart. The PET also provides an article regarding Orchard Supply closings, articles on store openings (and closings) nationwide, trends in Wal Mart store sizes over time (with a graph), Al's definition of 'fee simple interest', chart of 6 Florida Wal Mart sales between 2012-2016 (with only 1 of the 6 sales in SW Florida in Bonita Springs in 2013), roster of 72 sales nationwide [ with back-up documentation], information from a 2018 annual conference in Vancouver, Canada on 'Big Box Realities", chart of 5 large retail spaces in Florida available for lease (all are from small market areas &none are in SW Florida], and back-up related to those asking large rents from small market areas. In the Income Approach, the PET concludes a value of $7,695,071 (without any COS discount), based upon a $6.25/SF rental rate, 5% vacancy, 8.11 % expenses, and an unloaded OAR of9.0% applied to the NOI of $692,556. The PET's Income Approach Conclusion results in $60.67/SF of the subject's adjusted building area. RULING: The PAO estimated land value at $12/SF ($8,995,584), plus $2,727,357 of 2018-00503 Page 3 of 4 impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $11,722,941, which is 129.3% of the contested just value). Even if the subject's site were to be valued at $9.00/SF (similar to the PAO's LOWEST Land Sale #8 that closed in January 2018 not too far from the subject on Radio Road), the land value+ impact fees would= $9,474,045, which still supports the PAO' s assessment of $9,063,572 without even additional building value. This is also support for the H&BU, which begins with the estimation of land value. The PET fails to address land value or H&BU, which is one of the 8 criteria of F.S. 193.011. While the PET' s representative is extremely knowledgeable in this class of asset, there still must be consideration of alternate uses, subdividing the structure, and of course the underlying land value (which is especially relevant to this hearing). H&BU cannot be adequately addressed without estimating the land's value, which was not done by the PET. The PET fails to overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00503: 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. 2018-00503 Page 4 of 4 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R.01/17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 ll] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00504 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 00199283000 Property 5414 JULIETBLVD address NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary ll] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 16,790,000.00 16,790,000.00 16,790,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,790,000.00 16,790,000.00 16,790,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,790,000.00 16,790,000.00 16,790,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxino authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [{I Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/26/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axictJ D 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 oarties 2018-00504 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00504: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner is Mr. Jerry Aucoin. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Wal Mart Superstore, which relates to 'big box' retail data. The subject was built in 2005 (204,181 SF), with a more recent addition in 2017 for a liquor store (5,192 SF) and auto center (3,816 SF). It is located at 5414 Juliet Boulevard (at the SW quadrant of the I-75/Immokalee Road interchange). The structure has an adjusted building size of 204,181 SF situated upon a site of 1,034,910 SF (or 23.76 acres). SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: There has not been a sale of the subject in more than 5 years. The subject site sold in 2004 for $12.5M, or $12.08/SF of site area ( without impact fees). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $16,790,000, or $78. 76/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), location map, zoning map, building sketch, exterior/interior building photos, prior 2009 deed (with legal description), land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Marshall Valuation cost support, Sales Comparison grid of 7 improved sales, improved sales map, land sales map, Income Approach, improved sale photographs/CoStar back-up data, CoStar lease comparables, article about Oakes Farms new organic food store, chart of big box data/ cap rates/sales, Valbridge 'Retail Snapshot' article for SW Florida (with occupancy, asking rent & net absorption data), CoStar SW Florida retail statistics/rates/submarket statistics, & impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $10/SF ($10,349,100), plus $4,447,679 of impact fees [ supported by an exhibit] for a total of $14,796,779. That figure equates to 88.1% of the PAO's total just value of$16,790,000 (without even giving consideration to any vertical building improvements). The land value estimate was based upon the 8 commercial large land sale indicators that date back to 2014. The PAO appears to give strong consideration to Land Sale #5 at $9.39/SF that closed in 2016, given that sale is very similar in size. The average of the 8 sales is $13. 77 /SF with a median of $12/SF. The PAO's estimated $10/SF for the subject appears reasonable. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($12,685,591) & site improvements/paving at $432,476, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $27,915,000 (rounded). The PAO could have, but does not, provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and minor soft costs. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. Conversely, the PAO does not make any deduction related to functional obsolescence related to the diminished demand for large 'big box' stores, as would be argued by the PET. However, the PAO indirectly does consider dramatic functional obsolescence, given the fact that the land value+ impact fees equate to 88.1 % of the entire just value before even considering a penny of the building improvements. 2018-00504 Page 2 of 5 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales to support the subject's $78.76/SF assessment. Two of the sales (#1 & #5) are in Lee County, while Sale #6 (a former Dillards in a mall that sold back in late 2014 for $103.83/SF) is in Sarasota County. Sales #2 & #5 are also leased fee sales; thus, the terms of the lease influenced their prices of $169.85/SF & $152.93, respectively. While Sale #1 was on Tamiami Trail in Ft. Myers (i.e. in Lee County), it was a fee simple sale of a former Home Depot of 126,024 SF (per the PAO's size provided) for $63.48/SF. Lee County is often considered inferior to Collier County; thus, the subject's assessment at $78.76/SF may well be reasonable when compared to Sale #1. Sales #3 (dark Sports Authority@ $235.42/SF) and #7 (a dark Albertsons that sold for $79.98/SF) are two fee simple sales that tend to support the subject's assessment, yet they both substantially smaller than the subject's building size. Thus, it is hard to make direct comparisons on limited recent data of comparable 'big box' fee simple sales, particularly within Collier County. Not that many sales take place of this size, and many (but not all) are stores that have gone dark. Comparing Collier County sales to other counties can also be difficult for big box transactions. I consider the PAO' s Sales Comparison Approach to be inconclusive, given a wide range of data exists. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of $16,827,000 (rounded), but I have corrected the math (as used throughout this paragraph) indicating a corrected Income Approach Value of $17,197,000. This is based upon $7 /SF rental rate for the main store of 204,181 SF, $25/SF for the liquor store, and $10/SF for the auto center. The corrected PGI is $1,597,227. The PAO then applies 5% vacancy, 15% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% is then applied to the corrected NOI of $1,289,761. The corrected Income Approach value is $17,197,000 (before any COS). Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides rent comparables, cap rate information, & vacancy data. The PAO emphasizes data for freestanding retail stores using both CoStar and confidential information from the PAO's files. However, highly comparable 'big box' rental data for buildings of the subject's size is very limited. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good support via the three traditional approaches to value, but mainly due to the strength of good land value data in the Cost Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET's cover page summarizes the subject's physical and assessment breakdown. The cover page also indicates the PET is requesting a just value of $11,571,120, or $55/SF of adjusted building area. Mr. Aucoin is very knowledgeable in this class of retail asset, given he is an employee of Wal Mart. The PET also provides an article regarding Orchard Supply closings, articles on store openings (and closings) nationwide, trends in Wal Mart store sizes over time (with a graph), Al's definition of 'fee simple interest', chart of 6 Florida Wal Mart sales between 2012-2016 (with only 1 of the 6 sales in SW Florida in Bonita Springs in 2013), roster of 72 sales nationwide [with back-up documentation], information from a 2018 annual conference in Vancouver, Canada on 'Big Box Realities", chart of 5 large retail spaces in Florida available for lease (all are from small market areas &none are in SW Florida], and back-up related to those asking large rents from small market areas. 2018-00504 Page 3 of 5 In the Income Approach, the PET concludes a value of$11,585,146 (without any COS discount), based upon a $6.00/SF rental rate applied to 'rentable' area of 210,384 SF, 10% vacancy, 8.22% expenses, and an unloaded OAR of 9.0% applied to the NOi of $1,042,663. The PET's Income Approach Conclusion results in $54.34/SF of the subject's adjusted building area. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PET concludes a value of $15,571,120, based upon his summary page at the front of his evidence. Interestingly, the PET's cover page also provides a 'requested valuation' breakdown between the land and building components with a total of $11,571,120. The land component is listed as $5,600,700, yet the subject site sold in 2004 for $12.5M, or $12.08/SF of site area (without impact fees). Thus, 14 years have transpired, Wal Mart paid (in current dollars the equivalent of) $4,447,675 MORE, yet the PET's breakdown for the land still remains far less than half paid for the site 14 years prior to the assessment date. [ Granted, the PAO' s actual 'administrative' breakdown between the land and building components is also equally distorted.] Regardless, these VAB hearings are to address or contest the total just value of a property, not the land or building components. RULING: The PAO estimated land value at $10.00/SF ($8,995,584), plus $4,447,679 of impact fees [ supported by an exhibit] for a total of $14,796,779, which is 88.1 % of the contested just value of $16,790,000. This is also support for the H&BU, which begins with the estimation of land value. The PET fails to address land value or H&BU, which is one of the 8 criteria ofF.S. 193.011. While the PET's representative is extremely knowledgeable in this class of asset, there still must be consideration of alternate uses, subdividing the structure, and of course the underlying land value (which is especially relevant to this hearing). H&BU cannot be adequately addressed without estimating the land's value, which was not done by the PET. The PAO basically acknowledges substantial and dramatic obsolescence associated with the building improvements ( even though they are not that old). Interestingly, the PET makes a large presentation as to the non-functional nature of big boxes, yet this same owner/Petitioner also just got done adding 9,008 SF of adjusted building area to the subject in 2017, via the new construction of a liquor store and an auto center. Thus, the PET is saying one thing at this V AB hearing yet doing exactly the opposite in their actions by expand the subject's building area during 2017. This reinforces my previous comments related to H&BU and the fact that one cannot necessarily compare what happens with big boxes throughout the entire US ( or State of Florida), and then try to compare those statistics and values to Collier County. If the subject were in such a bad location and so dramatically overbuilt beyond what the market demands or wants, then it begs the question as to why Wal Mart has expanded the subject. Perhaps the subject's location at a major interstate interchange is a benefit, along with a location supported by a growing population to the east of the subject. The PET fails to overcome the PAO' s presumption of correctness. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. 2018-00504 Page 4 of 5 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00504: 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. 2018-00504 Page 5 of 5 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00505 Parcel ID 00165640004 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 2550 IMMOKALEE RD NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 8,420,249.00 8,420,249.00 8,420,249.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,420,249.00 8,420,249.00 8,420,249.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,420,249.00 8,420,249.00 8,420,249.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F .S .) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/26/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00505 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00505: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner is Mr. Jerry Aucoin. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Sam's 'big box' retail store. The subject was built in 1992 & 2009. The subject is located at 2550 Immokalee Road in Naples. The subject is at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road & Airport Road North. The main store (built in '92) has 132,692 SF of adjusted area, while the car wash (built in 2009) has 2,150 SF & the car wash (built in 2009) has 2,820 SF. The structure has a total adjusted building size of 137,662 SF situated upon a site of 587,673 SF (or 13.49 acres). SUBJECT'S RECENT SALES HISTORY: There has not been a sale of the subject in more than 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of $8,420,249, or $61.17 /SF of adjusted building area. The PAO includes a package of law & assessment information related to the mass appraisal process, which is information the PAO provides to most hearings. The PAO also provides subject-specific evidence related to aerial photo(s), location map, zoning map, building sketch, exterior/interior building photos, prior 2009 deed (with legal description), land sales grid, Cost Approach Summary, Marshall Valuation cost support, Sales Comparison grid of 7 improved sales, improved sales map, land sales map, Income Approach, improved sale photographs/CoStar back-up data, CoStar lease comparables, article about Oakes Farms new organic food store, chart of big box data/ cap rates/sales, Valbridge 'Retail Snapshot' article for SW Florida (with occupancy, asking rent & net absorption data), CoStar SW Florida retail statistics/rates/submarket statistics, & impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12/SF ($7,052,082), plus $2,818,756 of impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $9,870,838. That figure equates to 117.21 % of the PAO's total just value of $8,420,249 (without even considering any vertical building improvements). The land value estimate was based upon the 8 commercial large land sale indicators that date back to 2014. I give strong consideration to Land Sale #1 at $11.95/SF that closed in mid-2017, given that recent sale is very similar in size to the subject. The average of the 8 sales is $13.77/SF with a median of $12/SF. The PAO's estimated $12/SF for the subject appears reasonable. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($6,024,925) & site improvements/paving at $858,083, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $16,754,000 (rounded). The PAO could have, but does not, provide a line item for entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, and minor soft costs. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach could easily be several hundred thousand dollars higher than concluded. Conversely, the PAO does not make any deduction related to functional obsolescence associated with the diminished demand for large 'big box' stores, as would be argued by the PET. However, the PAO indirectly does consider dramatic functional obsolescence, given the fact that the land value + impact fees equate to 11 7 .2% of the entire just value before even considering a penny of the building 2018-00505 Page 2 of 5 improvements. Thus, one could argue that the PAO is not assessing any portion of the building, even though it is a very substantial structure. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales to support the subject's $61.17/SF assessment. Two of the sales (#1 & #5) are in Lee County, while Sale #6 (a former Dillards in a mall that sold back in late 2014 for $103.83/SF) is in Sarasota County. Sales #2 & #5 are also leased fee sales; thus, the terms of the lease influenced their prices of $169.85/SF & $152.93, respectively. While Sale #1 was on Tamiami Trail in Ft. Myers (i.e. in Lee County), it was a fee simple sale of a former Home Depot of 126,024 SF (per the PAO' s size provided) for $63 .48/SF. Lee County is often considered inferior to Collier County; thus, the subject's assessment at $61.17 /SF may well be reasonable when compared to Sale # 1. Sales #3 ( dark Sports Authority @ $235.42/SF) and #7 (a dark Albertsons that sold for $79.98/SF) are two fee simple sales that tend to support the subject's assessment, yet they both substantially smaller than the subject's building size. Thus, it is hard to make direct comparisons on limited recent data of comparable 'big box' fee simple sales, particularly within Collier County. Not that many sales take place of this size, and many (but not all) are stores that have gone dark. Comparing Collier County sales to other counties can also be difficult for big box transactions. I consider the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach to be inconclusive, given a wide range of data exists. In the Income Approach, the PAO makes size errors for the car wash & the auto center yet does get the correct size for the large building. The PAO's size errors on the smaller building does result in some corrections to the math, as I will report in this paragraph. The corrected Income Approach value is $10,536,000. This is based upon $7 /SF rental rate for the main store of 132,697 SF, $10/SF for the car wash of 2,150 SF, and $10/SF for the auto center of 2,820 SF. The corrected PGI is $978,544. The PAO then applies 5% vacancy, 15% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.5% is then applied to the corrected NOI of $790,174. The corrected Income Approach value is $10,536,000 (before any COS deduction). Apparently, the PAO was never provided historical or actual income/ expense information from the subject. The PAO also provides rent comparables, cap rate information, & vacancy data. The PAO emphasizes data for freestanding retail stores using both CoStar and confidential information from the PAO's files. However, highly comparable 'big box' rental data for buildings of the subject's size is very limited. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good support via the three traditional approaches to value, but mainly due to the strength of good land value data in the Cost Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET's cover page summarizes the subject's physical and assessment breakdown. The cover page also indicates the PET is requesting a just value of $6,753,000, or $49.06/SF of adjusted building area. Mr. Aucoin is very knowledgeable in this class of retail asset, given he is an employee of Wal Mart. The PET also provides an article regarding Orchard Supply closings, articles on store openings (and closings) nationwide, trends in Wal Mart store sizes over time (with a graph), Al's definition of 'fee simple interest', chart of 6 Florida Wal Mart sales between 2012-2016 (with only 1 of the 6 sales in SW Florida in Bonita Springs in 2013), roster of 72 sales nationwide [with back-up documentation], information from a 2018 annual 2018-00505 Page 3 of 5 conference in Vancouver, Canada on 'Big Box Realities", chart of 5 large retail spaces in Florida available for lease (all are from small market areas &none are in SW Florida], and back-up related to those asking large rents from small market areas. In the Income Approach, the PET concludes a value of $11,585,146 (without any COS discount), based upon a $5.50/SF rental rate applied to 'rentable' area of 135,066 SF, 7% vacancy, 8.15% expenses, and an unloaded OAR of 9.0% applied to the NOI of $634,554. The PET's Income Approach Conclusion results in $51.22/SF of the subject's adjusted building area. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PET concludes a value of $6,753,300, based upon his summary page at the front of his evidence. The PET's reconciled request for a just value of $6,753,300 equates to $11.49/SF of land area (without impact fees of an additional $2,818,756). RULING: The PAO estimated land value at $12.00/SF ($7,052,082), plus $2,818,756 of impact fees [supported by an exhibit] for a total of $9,870,838, which is 117.2% of the contested just value of $8,420,249. This is also support for the H&BU, which begins with the estimation of land value. The PET fails to address land value or H&BU, which is one of the 8 criteria of F.S. 193.011. While the PE T's representative is extremely knowledgeable in this class of asset, there still must be consideration of alternate uses, subdividing the structure, and of course the underlying land value (which is especially relevant to this hearing). H&BU cannot be adequately addressed without estimating the land's value, which was not done by the PET. The PAO basically acknowledges substantial and dramatic obsolescence associated with the building. Basically, the PAO is not even assessing the structure at all; thus, the PAO is indirectly confirming a high degree of depreciation (and/or obsolescence) exists with the subject's older structures. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00505: 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 2018-00505 Page 4 of 5 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. 2018-00505 Page 5 of 5 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00507 Parcel ID 59960060720 Petitioner name JESSICA R. PALOMBI, ESQ. Property The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent address 14895 BELLEZZALN NAPLES, FL 34110 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,593,764.00 1,593,764.00 1,593,764.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,593,764.00 1,593,764.00 1,593,764.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,593,764.00 1,593,764.00 1,593,764.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxin(l authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00507 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00507: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Ms. Jessica Palombi, ESQ, agent for the owner. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,593,764. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 4,316-sf and an adjusted building size of 5 ,497-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .27 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 66.9 ft. The property was built in 2006. The subject property sold in December 2017 for $1,600,000. There had been a disqualified sale earlier in the year for $1,700,000. The property is located in an upscale golf community known as Mediterra at 14895 Bellezza Lane, Naples FL. PAO's following report, applies to all petitions in the year 2018 and is The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report which contains Collier County's statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Level of assessment statistics and graphs. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.") Ms. Blaje indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, presented a report containing 33 pages. The report included the evidence and 2018-00507 Page 2 of 7 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerial of the subject and location maps, sketch of the building. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, listing history of the subject on MLS and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 3 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Mediterra and occurred from March 2017 to July 2017. The front footage (FF) for the sales ranges from 100.33 ft to 181.82 ft; the sale price range is $5,946 to $14,056/ FF. PAO reconciled at $8,320/FF or $556,608. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,197,181; the land value is estimated at $556,608 for a total cost of $1,753,789. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 8 improved sales, all located in close proximity to subject neighborhood in Mediterra. The sales occurred from February 2017 to December 2017. The sales range in adjusted building size from 3,489- sf to 5,497-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 65 FF to 79.2 FF. The buildings were built from 2006 to 2007. The sales range from $291.00 to $371/sf of building area including land with an average of $333.00/sf, and a median of $335.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $333.00/sf of building area (5,497-sf) including land or $1,831,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $1,593,764. PET's evidence was a 40-page report which consists of a cover letter, trim notice for the subject, MLS listing sheet for the subject, inventory of furnishings, seller's disclosure statement, letter from Collier County Commissioners certificate of completion and permit for the air conditioner replacement. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach and includes MLS detail sheets on each sale. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only, PET did not develop the Cost Approach or the Income Approach to value. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject property was sold furnished and the furnishings had a value of $400,000. PET provided 5 sales of improved properties in Mediterra. The sales occurred from January 2017 to October 2018, the October 2018 sale is out of the range for a 2018-00507 Page 3 of 7 January!, 2018 value. The sales range in adjusted building size from 3,911-sfto 4,524-sf excluding the October 2018 sale. The buildings were built from 2006 to 2007. The sales range from $331.56 to $404.62/sf of building area including land with an average of $372.62/sf. PET indicates a value range of$1,200,000-$1,400,000 without furnishings. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.01 I outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2018-00507 Page 4 of 7 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income -PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria ofF.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that all sales except one had furnishings included in the sale price. PAO indicated that PET's sales were smaller in size and no adjustments were made for differences between the sales for amenities. PET did not know the age of the furnishings and could not assign a depreciated value to the furnishings. PAO indicated the doc fees paid at time of sale to Collier County do not include any furnishings and the price paid reflects the real estate value only; typically, a separate contract is executed for furnishings. Also, PET indicated that if furnishings are included in the sale price, these furnishings may have no value to the purchaser. As rebuttal, PET indicated the furnishings have value to the purchaser. PET also indicated the property was on the market for 757 days. The most recent asking price was $1,849,000 and sold for $1,600,000. PAO provided recent sales in the subject neighborhood and adjusted the sales for differences. The sale price paid for real estate typically does not include the value of the furnishings. PET did not adjust the sales for differences and PET could not provide a depreciated value of the furnishings. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of 2018-00507 Page 5 of 7 correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00507: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser's assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PAO provided recent sales in the subject neighborhood and adjusted the sales for differences. The sale price paid for real estate typically does not include the value of the furnishings. PET did not adjust the sales for differences and PET could not provide a depreciated value of the furnishings. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO' s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value 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. 2018-00507 Page 6 of 7 In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2018-00507 Page 7 of 7 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff.01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00524 Parcel ID 17012960008 Petitioner name ROGER N SIMMONS REV TRUST Property 1442 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: [ll taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 D other, explain: Decision Summary D Denied your petition [ll Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 7,231,090.00 7,231,090.00 4,250,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,231,090.00 7,231,090.00 4,250,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,231,090.00 7,231,090.00 4,250,000.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [ll Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/03/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axice D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to oarties 2018-00524 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00524: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris Woolsey, Esq. [PAO's legal counsel] & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. Roger Simons (the owner). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a I-story single family home built in 1957, yet (due to renovations) the PAO gives it an effective date of 18 years (i.e. year 2000 construction). It is located within the Port Royal subdivision. The street address is 1442 Galleon Drive in Naples. The subject has Gulf of Mexico access by boat with no fixed bridges. The subject has a living area of 4,897 SF, and an adjusted building size of 5,445 SF situated upon a site of 0. 71 acres. PRIOR SALE OF THE SUBJECT: The subject recently sold on April 25, 2017 for $5,000,000. This was an arm's length sale with ample market exposure. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted two traditional approaches (Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach) to value to support the contested just value of $7,231,090. The PAO also provided the subject's building card information, plat map, aerial photo, location map, ground level photos, building sketch, improved sales map, land sale grid, improved sales grids (10 total sales), back-up photos/sketches for the various improved sales, subject's listing history, subject's recent MLS for its 4/2017 sale, & city/county impact fee calculations. 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 for a high value property. All of the PAO's evidence submitted is relevant to this hearing and class of property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $4 7,000/front feet X 152.08 FF X 1.06 depth factor, or $7,576,626. That land value is based upon 3 land sales during 2017. Those land sales provide a range in $/FF indicators from $33,394-$58,497. The PAO also considers site improvements of $0 (zero), and impact fees of $30,073, and a depreciated building value of $355,705. The PAO does NOT provide back-up improvement cost information from Marshall Valuation. The PAO concludes a final Cost Approach value indication of $7,962,043, which is supportive of the total just value of $7,231,090. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales. Sale #1 is the subject's recent sale for $5M in 4/2017. The subject's sale equates to $32,877/FF, which is at the low end of land sales indicator #3, which was $33,394/FF. The PAO provides photos & sketch back-up sheets in evidence for each of the improved. The PAO notes the subject's listing history indicating the subject has been on & off the market since February 2016 with an initial asking price of $6,890,000. Basically, the subject has had more than a year of market exposure before it ultimately sold for $5M in April 2017. The subject's MLS sheet indicates it sold with conventional financing & no seller concess10ns. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness via the valuation approaches presented. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing and did submit evidence into the record. The PET submitted a roster of 21 properties with 2018-00524 Page 2 of 4 assessment information. The PAO notes that roster includes 14 [untimely] sales form 2018, 4 sales from 2017, 1 2016 sale, and 2 properties that did not sell. The PET was trying to make 'comparable assessment' arguments, but the presentation has flaws for comparability with the subject for a variety of reasons & lack of adjustments for dissimilar conditions. I give no weight to the PET' s comparable assessment analysis. The PET also presents a cover letter, subject's listing history, aerial photograph, (blurry) market overview of real estate information for Naples. At the hearing, I also accepted rebuttal evidence from the PET consisting of view photos of PAO's land sale comparables. The subject's view (photo provided by PET) appears to be similar to the PAO's Land Sale #3. PAO's Land Sales #1 & #2 appear to have superior views that are more expansive than what is available to the subject. The PET also provided a copy of the subject's deed, as well as a copy of the fee appraiser's appraisal report used for the PET's acquisition loan. That value (as of3/27/2017) was estimated to be $5,250,000. The appraiser was Barbara Manganaro, based in Naples. Later in the year (in September), Hurricane Irma hit, resulting in the removal of some of the subject's mature tree cover. RULING: It appears the PAO's land value estimate in the PAO's Cost Approach substantially overstates the subjects site value (and ultimate Cost Approach indication). The PET provided credible rebuttal photographs of each site's view, as well as the subject's view. The PAO's location map indicating the proximity of the sales on a plat map also suggests the PAO's land sales #1 & #2 are more expansive than the subject's narrower view, which is far more consistent with PAO's Land Sale #3@ $33,394/SF. A perhaps unavoidable issue related to the PAO's improved sales relates to the year of original construction. The subject was originally built in 1957, while the PAO's 9 other sales range from 1981 -2016, with 5 of the 9 built after 2003. Seven of the 9 other PAO sales are also 2-story homes; whereas, the subject has only 1 story. It appears the subject's value is substantially 'in the land' (as noted by the PAO's testimony), and most of the PAO' s improved sales fail to offer the degree of comparability that would be desired. However, PAO's Land Sale #3 does offer a high degree of comparability, given its very similar view. The fee appraisal report also reinforces a value far closer to the PET's position, as opposed to the PAO's much higher value. Probably the most important market-oriented evidence for the subject's value was the $5M price paid by the PET after (approximately) 424 days of marketing. This is highly compelling and justifies a substantial reduction. It is recommended the subject's just value be reduced to $5M X 85% = $4,250,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00524: 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 2018-00524 Page 3 of 4 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 overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2018-00524 Page 4 of 4 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAS If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00525 Parcel ID 64410040007 Petitioner name SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ. Property The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address 3790 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34103 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 6,724,907.00 6,724,907.00 6,724,907.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,724,907.00 6,724,907.00 6,724,907.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,724,907.00 6,724,907.00 6,724,907.00 * 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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/06/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00525 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00525: Petitions 2018-525 & 526 were heard together. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Staruch, Ms. Gregar, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they do not need to testify or present evidence at this hearing. The Petitioner (PET)did not attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance, and did not submit any evidence into the record in advance of the hearing in a timely manner. The PET issued an email the morning of the hearing asking to have late evidence [attached to the email] submitted for consideration;however, the PAO objected strongly to the late evidence. Therefore, I also rejected the PET's late evidence for consideration. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase 'just value' has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professional accepted appraisal practices including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, laws of Florida (House bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. The PAO established a value of the subject using mass appraisal standards at $6,724,907. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit timely evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00525: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any [timely] evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00525 Page 2 of 2 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00526 Petitioner name SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ. The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record [l] taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Parcel ID 64410040104 Property address NAPLES, FL Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,048,154.00 2,048,154.00 2,048,154.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,048,154.00 2,048,154.00 2,048,154.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,048,154.00 2,048,154.00 2,048,154.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Watson Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 12/06/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Siqnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00526 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00526: Petitions 2018-525 & 526 were heard together. The PAO was represented by Mr. Quinby, Mr. Staruch, Ms. Gregar, & Ms. Blaje. While the PAO representatives were present & had been previously sworn in, they do not need to testify or present evidence at this hearing. The Petitioner (PET)did not attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance, and did not submit any evidence into the record in advance of the hearing in a timely manner. The PET issued an email the morning of the hearing asking to have late evidence [attached to the email] submitted for consideration; however, the PAO objected strongly to the late evidence. Therefore, I also rejected the PET's late evidence for consideration. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase 'just value' has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professional accepted appraisal practices including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, laws of Florida (House bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. The PAO established a value of the subject using mass appraisal standards at $2,048,154. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit timely evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00526: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not [timely] submit any evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00526 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 [l] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00527 Parcel ID 37392680101 Petitioner name ZATORSKI, HAL Property The petitioner is: [Z] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address 1830 JUNGBLVDE NAPLES, FL 34120 D other, explain: Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 545,167.00 545,167.00 545,167.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 528,745.00 528,745.00 528,745.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 528,745.00 528,745.00 528,745.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/07/2018 Date 11/08/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axictJ D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sic:mature, VAB clerk or recresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00527 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00527: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00527: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and the Petitioner Hal Zatorski. Mr. Zatorski did provide evidence for the SM review. The PAO and Petitioner provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and petitioner were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $545,167. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. The petitioner provided evidence that consisted of a comparison of assessments of other properties in the area. The petitioner was present however had no relevant or credible market data to support a change in PAO market value. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative 2018-00527 Page 2 of 4 or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); ( 4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. (5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that PAO's value is presumed correct. PAO considered comparable sales in the community as well cost new. The (PET) presented evidence for consideration, however determined not credible or relevant and lacked market support. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. PAO's value is determined by the evidence to be presumed correct. 2018-00527 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00527: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00527 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 as the admitted evidence did 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. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a just value. PAO's value of $545,167 is presumed correct. 2018-00527 Page 4 of 4 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00528 Parcel ID 08483240007 Petitioner name EDNA WILSON KOCH TRUST Property The petitioner is: [l] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address 1408 PELICAN AVE NAPLES, FL 34102 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 839,752.00 839,752.00 839,752.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 635,883.00 635,883.00 635,883.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 635,883.00 635,883.00 635,883.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinQ authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F .S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. [l] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/09/2018 Date 11/19/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sicmature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00528 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00528: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00528: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby. In accordance with FAC 12D-9.021[8] which states [findings of fact], the Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. PAO confirmed just value of $839,752.The TRIM value has not changed.The petition is denied. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00528: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00528: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. In the instant matter, the Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. The relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00528 Page 2 of 2 • FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00544 Parcel ID 10040102000 Petitioner name JAMES w SNOWDEN Property 3250 9TH STN The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 D other, explain: Decision Summary Ill Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none Value from TRIM Notice 9,938,762.00 9,938,762.00 0.00 Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 9,938,762.00 9,938,762.00 0.00 After Board Action 9,938,762.00 9,938,762.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,938,762.00 9,938,762.00 9,938,762.00 * All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxi no authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F .S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Lorraine Dube Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/10/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D 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 2018-00544 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00544: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was not present at the hearing; however, PET requested their evidence be presented and heard in their absence. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $9,938,762. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. The subject property is a hotel located at 3250 9th Street North, Naples, FL. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. No evidence was admitted into record. There was no evidence exchanged between PAO and PET and no evidence was presented at the hearing. However, the Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 ( 1 ). The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $9,938,762. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence to be presented and heard in their absence PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. SM communicated with V AB legal counsel concerning hearings where no evidence is exchanged between PAO and PET. SM was seeking assurance on the procedure of such hearings. See Rule 12D9.030 (6) F.A.C Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00544: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any 2018-00544 Page 2 of 3 evidence for the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2018-00544 Page 3 of 3 II FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 IZ] These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2018-00599 Parcel ID 27185004603 Petitioner name JEFFREY D DAVIS The petitioner is: IZ] taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property 12207 COLLIERS RESERVEDR address NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary [l] Denied your petition D Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 867,366.00 867,366.00 867,366.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 867,366.00 867,366.00 867,366.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 817,366.00 817,366.00 817,366.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. IZ] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2018 Date 12/06/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axica D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Siqnature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00599 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00599: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00599: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch and Jeep Quinby. PAO and petitioner were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $867,366. In accordance with FAC 12D-9.021[8] which states [findings of fact], the Petitioner did appear at the hearing however did not state good cause and therefore no official hearing regarding evidence took place. The PAO established a value of the subject using mass appraisal standards at $867,366. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence or any verbal testimony before the hearing or at the hearing. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00599: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00599: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. In the instant matter, the Petitioner did appear at the hearing however did not state good cause. The relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. PAO's value of $867,366 is presumed correct. 2018-00599 Page 2 of 2 ■ FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 Ill These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171 (2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00601 Parcel ID 17861160004 Petitioner name G. HELEN ATHAN The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record Ill taxpayer's agent D other, explain: Property address 545 PALMCIR W NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,010,079.00 2,010,079.00 1,550,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,662,428.00 1,662,428.00 1,550,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,612,428.00 1,612,428.00 1,500,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxinq authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Ill Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Mark Pelletier Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name 11/09/2018 Date 11/21/2018 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 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axic:n D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or reoresentative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00601 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00601: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-00601: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner's representative's Ms. Athan and Mr. Stockman. Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $2,010,079. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 545 Palm Circle West, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2018 petitions and forms part of PAO' s evidence in every petition. Mr. Staruch presented the PAO's report. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated there were limited sales of vacant sites in the community. PAO considered the 8 criteria and accepted appraisal practices and established the presumption of correctness. The PET, when providing evidence which included sales data for the area in 2017 and stated the fact that this property was purchased in an arm's length estate sale for $320,000, has established a revised just value based on the evidence submitted. The Petitioner, when providing evidence which was the purchase of the property October 2017 for $1,550,000. He explained the property was purchased in an arm's length sale exposed to the open market in local multiple listing service has established a revised just value based on the evidence submitted. SM reviewed all the sales. The phrase "just value" has been determined to be synonymous with "fair market value". See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, "relevant evidence" is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be 2018-00601 Page 2 of 4 admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: ( 1) Present cash value -the PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use -land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location -PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size -the subject's size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC. ( 5) Cost and present replacement value -PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; ( 6) Condition -The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was developed. (7) Income -PAO was not developed. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale -the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 50- page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. The SM did consider the PAO's and PET's evidence and is in agreement that the property sale of $1,550,000 was credible did support and overcome the burden of proof. The PET's evidence is considered credible and supportive of a value change. 2018-00601 Page 3 of 4 Special Magistrate has determined that PET's value is correct. PAO did not support the value. PAO Presumption of Correctness has been overcome by a preponderance of the PET's evidence. (Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. PET's value is determined by the evidence to be correct. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00601: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-00601: 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 initially provided evidence that appeared to establish a presumption of correctness, however the petitioner's evidence overcame the presumption of correctness. Competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. PAO's value is incorrect. SM recommends the petition be granted with a revised new just value of $1,550,000. 2018-00601 Page 4 of 4 Ii FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. DR-485XC R. 01/17 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final D These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAS, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00616 Parcel ID 70645002202 Petitioner name FRANK AND BRENDA REAVES Property 130 ESTELLE DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address 0 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary D Denied your petition Ill Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 222,814.00 222,814.00 222,814.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 222,814.00 222,814.00 138,603.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 138,603.00 4. Taxable value,* required 222,814.00 222,814.00 0.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reason for Petition 0 Homestead O Widow/er O Blind O Totally and permanently disabled veteran 0 Low-income senior O Disabled O Disabled veteran O Use classification, specify 0 Parent/grandparent assessment reduction O Deployed military O Use exemption, specify 0 Transfer of homestead assessment difference B Qualifying improvement 0 Change of ownership or control Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/26/2018 Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on Address at Date 12/06/2018 Date [!]AMO PM. If the line above is blank, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2018 D 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 2018-00616 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: Petitioners are Frank and Brenda Reaves, who own a residence located at 130 Estelle Drive, Naples, FL. Only Brenda Reaves appeared at the hearing. The Property Appraiser's Office was represented by Anabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions and Customer Service Department, Jennifer Earle, Supervisor for Exemptions Department and Attorney J. Christopher Woolsey (hereinafter "PAO"). Mrs. Reaves presented her evidence which consisted of 8 pages. These documents were admitted without objection as P's Composite Ex. 1. The PAO submitted their evidence consisting of22 pages, which was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1. Petitioners are challenging a denial for homestead application for 2018 and the denial of transfer of their Save Our Homes assessment difference to the subject property in Petition Nos. 616 and 617, respectively. The two petitions were consolidated for purposes of the hearing and the presentation of the evidence. Petitioners purchased the subject property on December 27, 2017. (Reaves; P. Ex. 1, p.2) When they closed on the property, they still owned a home at 1641 21st Street SW, Naples, which enjoyed a homestead exemption and a total exemption due to Frank Reaves' status as an honorably discharged, permanent and totally disabled veteran. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 8; Ybaceta; Reaves) It is unclear from the record evidence as to how long Petitioners enjoyed this exemption on the former property and the extent of the SOH savings which inured to the property, but Petitioners requested the transfer of the SOH assessment difference on February 7, 2018. (PAO Ex. I, p. 9) On that same date Petitioners filed application for their 2018 homestead on the subject property. (PAO Ex. I , p. 6) The application for homestead stated that the date of occupancy was January 3, 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p.6) Both applications were denied on grounds that Petitioners failed to establish the subject property as their permanent residence as of January 1, 2018. Without a new homestead for 2018, the assessment difference could not be transferred. (PAO Ex. 1, pp.12, 13) The Notice of Disapproval of Application for Property Tax Exemption was issued on June 12, 2018 and was valid per s. 196.193(5), Fla. Stat., as it cited specifically to the facts, thereby apprising Petitioner as to the basis of the denial. The Notice of Denial of Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference was issued on June 13, 2018, and was likewise valid under s. 196.193(5), Fla. Stat. On June 5, 2018, Petitioners applied for 2019 homestead exemption and a transfer of their homestead SOH assessment difference. The 2019 application states that the date of occupancy was December 29,2017 not January 3, 2018. (POA Ex. 1, pp. 19, 22) Petitioners planned to make the subject property their homestead and certified this fact on November 4, 2017 to the mortgage lender. (P. Ex. 1, p.8) Petitioners contracted with the movers in November, 2017, to move the contents of the 21st Street property to their new home after closing. (Reaves) Petitioners began packing their possessions in December in anticipation of the move and had the utilities turned on at the subject property at closing. (Reaves; P. Ex. I, p. 7) The movers delivered their furnishings and other possessions to the subject property until January 3rd. They sold the former home on January 30, 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p.4) There was no evidence as to when this home was 2018-00616 Page 2 of 4 under contract. Petitioners updated their drivers' licenses on April 26. 2018, but as of January 1, these licenses reflected their 21 St property as their permanent residence. (PAO Ex. I, pp.10-11) As a result of the Special Magistrate's recommendation, additional evidence as to the assessed and taxable values was needed from the PAO. The Special Magistrate incorrectly rendered a remand decision in this matter to the PAO requesting this information, instead of simply deferring the conclusion of this matter until the values could be obtained and inserted in the written recommendation. The remand recommendation should be treated as a request from the Special Magistrate for additional value evidence under the deferral process. Conclusions of Law: The Florida Constitution provides that every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner. .. shall be exempt from taxation thereon, except assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of twenty-five thousand dollars and, for all levies other than school district levies, on the assessed valuation greater than fifty thousand dollars and up to seventy- five thousand dollars. Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. When determining whether the property owner is entitled to an exemption, the operative date is January 1. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. Section 196.031(1)(a) restates this requirement and provides that a "person who, on January 1, has the legal title ... to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence ... is entitled to an exemption from all taxation .... " "Permanent residence" is defined as "that place where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment to which, whenever absent, he or she has the intention of returning. Section 196.012(17), Fla. Stat. Petitioners have the burden of proof to show that the Property Appraiser's denial is wrong and that they owned property upon which they maintained their permanent residence as of January 1, 2018. Although Petitioners were physically not on the property on January 1, they had legal title to the home and had made every preparation for occupancy. With all utilities activated the residence was clearly inhabitable on January 1 so there was no legal or physical impediment to their occupation. Section 196.015, Fla. Stat., provides a list of non-exclusive factors that the Property Appraiser may consider when determining whether an applicant for homestead exemption intends to establish Florida as his or her permanent residence. This list is not exclusive and discretionary. Garcia v. Andonie, 101 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 2012). Moreover, no one factor is conclusive. Of the factors listed under s. 196.015, the PAO relied upon the fact that Petitioners' Florida Driver's licenses and vehicle registrations still showed 1641 21st Street SW as their permanent residence. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 3, 10) In addition, the 2018-00616 Page 3 of 4 PAO relied upon the application for homestead which established January 3 as the date of occupancy. However, there is no statutory requirement that the property actually be occupied on that date. Although previously the Florida Constitution and, more recently, s.196.031(l)(a), Fla. Stat required that the owner "reside on" the property as of January 1, this language was removed from the Florida Constitution in 1968. While residing on the property is clearly required in order to maintain a home, residing on the property on January 1 is not constitutionally mandated, as long as the owner can establish that he or she is maintaining a permanent residence as of that date. Although it will be extremely rare where a homeowner can establish the maintenance of a residence without occupation on the operative date, this is just such a case. Petitioners evidence in this case was sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they intended to make the subject property their residence on or before January 1, 2018. Although PAO presented credible documentary evidence that the former residence was Petitioners' permanent residence as of January 1, the greater weight of the evidence was with Petitioners. Brenda Reaves testified that they intended to make the subject property their home once it was under contract, that they had contracted the movers well in advance of the closing, that they commenced packing in December in anticipation of their move and that it was always their intention to sell their house at 1641 21st Street SW, which they did in fact do on January 30, 2018. As of January 1, Petitioners had no intent to claim the 21st Street property as their fixed and permanent home. Brenda Reaves' testimony, along with the documentary evidence presented by both sides, was credible and relevant and sufficient to carry her burden of proof. Consequently, Petitioner was entitled to a homestead exemption for the subject property on January 1, 2018. Therefore, the Special Magistrate recommends that both Petitions 616 and 617 be granted. 2018-00616 Page 4 of 4 I ~ J FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. DR-485XC R. 01/17 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final D 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)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2018-00617 Parcel ID 70645002202 Petitioner name FRANK AND BRENDA REAVES Property 130 ESTELLE DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record D taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 D other, explain: Decision Summary D Denied your petition ll] Granted your petition D Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 222,814.00 222,814.00 222,814.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 222,814.00 222,814.00 138,603.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "O" if none 0.00 0.00 138,603.00 4. Taxable value,* required 222,814.00 222,814.00 0.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031 (7), F.S.) Reason for Petition D Homestead D Widow/er D Blind D Totally and permanently disabled veteran D Low-income senior D Disabled D Disabled veteran D Use classification, specify D Parent/grandparent assessment reduction D Deployed military D Use exemption, specify 0 Transfer of homestead assessment difference B Qualifying improvement D Change of ownership or control Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Signature, special magistrate Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Ellen Chadwell Print name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/26/2018 Date 12/06/2018 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at [!] AM D PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2018 D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Sianature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2018-00617 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: Petitioners are Frank and Brenda Reaves, who own a residence located at 130 Estelle Drive, Naples, FL. Only Brenda Reaves appeared at the hearing. The Property Appraiser's Office was represented by Anabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions and Customer Service Department, Jennifer Earle, Supervisor for Exemptions Department and Attorney J. Christopher Woolsey (hereinafter "PAO"). Mrs. Reaves presented her evidence which consisted of 8 pages. These documents were admitted without objection as P's Composite Ex. 1. The PAO submitted their evidence consisting of 22 pages, which was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1. Petitioners are challenging a denial for homestead application for 2018 and the denial of transfer of their Save Our Homes assessment difference to the subject property in Petition Nos. 616 and 617, respectively. These petitions were consolidate for purposes of this hearing and recommendation. Petitioner purchased the subject property on December 27, 2017 for $293,000. (Reaves; P. Ex. 1, pp.2,5) When they closed on the property, they still owned a home at 1641 21st Street SW, Naples, which enjoyed a homestead exemption and a total exemption due to Frank Reaves' status as an honorably discharged, permanent and totally disabled veteran. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 8; Ybaceta; Reaves) Their prior homestead was sold on January 30, 2018 for $335,000. (PAO Ex. 1, p.17) It is unclear from the record evidence as to how long Petitioners enjoyed this exemption on the former property and the extent of the SOH savings which inured to the property, but Petitioners requested the transfer of the SOH assessment difference on February 7, 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 9) On that same date Petitioners filed application for their 2018 homestead on the subject property. (PAO Ex. I , p. 6) The application for homestead stated that the date of occupancy was January 3, 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p.6) Both applications were denied on grounds that Petitioners failed to establish the subject property as their permanent residence as of January 1, 2018. Without a new homestead for 2018, the assessment difference could not be transferred. (PAO Ex. 1, pp.12, 13) The Notice of Disapproval of Application for Property Tax Exemption was issued on June 12, 2018 and was valid per s. 196.193( 5), Fla. Stat., as it cited specifically to the facts, thereby apprising Petitioner as to the basis of the denial. The Notice of Denial of Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference was issued on June 13, 2018, and was likewise valid under s. 196.193(5), Fla. Stat. On June 5, 2018, Petitioners applied for 2019 homestead exemption and a transfer of their homestead SOH assessment difference. The 2019 application states that the date of occupancy was December 29, 2017 not January 3, 2018. (POA Ex. 1, pp. 19, 22) Petitioners planned to make the subject property their homestead and certified this fact on November 4, 2017 to the mortgage lender. (P. Ex. 1, p.8) Petitioners contracted with the movers in November, 2017, to move the contents of the 21st Street property to their new home after closing. (Reaves) Petitioners began packing their possessions in December in anticipation of the move and had the utilities turned on at the subject property at closing. (Reaves; P. Ex. I, p.7) The movers delivered their furnishings and 2018-00617 Page 2 of 4 other possessions to the subject property until January 3rd. They sold the former home on January 30, 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p.4) There was no evidence as to when this home was under contract. Petitioners updated their drivers' licenses on April 26. 2018, but as of January 1, these licenses reflected their 21 St property as their permanent residence. (PAO Ex. I, pp.10-11) As a result of the Special Magistrate's recommendation, additional evidence as to the assessed and taxable values was needed from the PAO. The Special Magistrate incorrectly rendered a remand decision in this matter to the PAO requesting this information, instead of simply deferring the conclusion of this matter until the values could be obtained and inserted in the written recommendation. The remand decision should therefore be treated as a request for additional value evidence under the deferral process. Conclusions of Law: The Florida Constitution provides that every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner ... shall be exempt from taxation thereon, except assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of twenty-five thousand dollars and, for all levies other than school district levies, on the assessed valuation greater than fifty thousand dollars and up to seventy- five thousand dollars. Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. When determining whether the property owner is entitled to an exemption, the operative date is January 1. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. Section 196.031(1)(a) restates this requirement and provides that a "person who, on January 1, has the legal title ... to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence ... is entitled to an exemption from all taxation .... " "Permanent residence" is defined as "that place where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment to which, whenever absent, he or she has the intention of returning. Section 196.012(17), Fla. Stat. Petitioners have the burden of proof to show that the Property Appraiser's denial is wrong and that they owned property upon which they maintained their permanent residence as of January 1, 2018. Although Petitioners were physically not on the property on January 1, they had legal title to the home and had made every preparation for occupancy. With all utilities activated the residence was clearly inhabitable on January I so there was no legal or physical impediment to their occupation. Section 196.015, Fla. Stat., provides a list of non-exclusive factors that the Property Appraiser may consider when determining whether an applicant for homestead exemption intends to establish Florida as his or her permanent residence. This list is not exclusive and discretionary. Garcia v. Andonie, 101 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 2012). Moreover, 2018-00617 Page 3 of 4 no one factor is conclusive. Of the factors listed under s. 196.015, the PAO relied upon the fact that Petitioners' Florida Driver's licenses and vehicle registrations still showed 1641 21st Street SW as their permanent residence. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 3, 10) In addition, the PAO relied upon the application for homestead which established January 3 as the date of occupancy. However, there is no statutory requirement that the property actually be occupied on that date. Although previously the Florida Constitution and, more recently, s.196.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat required that the owner "reside on" the property as of January 1, this language was removed from the Florida Constitution in 1968. While residing on the property is clearly required in order to maintain a home, residing on the property on January 1 is not constitutionally mandated, as long as the owner can establish that he or she is maintaining a permanent residence as of that date. Although it will be extremely rare where a homeowner can establish the maintenance of a residence without occupation on the operative date, this is just such a case. Petitioners evidence in this case was credible and relevant and sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they intended to make the subject property their residence on or before January 1, 2018. Although PAO presented credible documentary evidence that the former residence was Petitioners' permanent residence as of January 1, the greater weight of the evidence was with Petitioners. Brenda Reaves testified that they intended to make the subject property their home once it was under contract, that they had contracted the movers well in advance of the closing, that they commenced packing in December in anticipation of their move and that it was always their intention to sell their house at 1641 21st Street SW, which they did on January 30, 2018. As of January 1, Petitioners had no intent to claim the 21st Street property as their fixed and permanent home. Brenda Reaves' testimony, along with the documentary evidence presented by both sides, was credible and relevant and sufficient to carry her burden of proof. Consequently, Petitioner was entitled to a homestead exemption for the subject property on January 1, 2018. Having established their homestead as 130 Estelle Drive on January 1, they are entitled to the transfer of the Save Our Homes assessment difference from the prior homestead property to the new homestead property in accordance with Section 193.155 (8)(b),Fla. Stat. The Special Magistrate recommends that both Petitions 616 and 61 7 be granted. 2018-00617 Page 4 of 4