Loading...
VAB Agenda 02-10-2020 Special Magistrate Recommendations irdDECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. 6 Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00050 Parcel ID 52392600001 Petitioner name BURKHARD M KLEIN DECL TRUST Property 177 PAGO PAGO DRW The petitioner is: EJ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 924,411.00 924,411.00 924,411.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 802,641.00 802,641.00 802,641.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 802,641.00 802,641.00 802,641.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/25/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00050 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00050: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and the Petitioner Burkard M. Klein. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and petitioner were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of$924,411. 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 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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 sales in the community. The petitioner provided an appraisal as evidence and the petitioner's own evidence was in support of the PAO's 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 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 2019-00050 Page 2 of 4 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 54- 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 an appraisal as 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 2019-00050: 2019-00050 Page 3 of 4 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$924,411 is presumed correct. The Petitioner failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness and the magistrate recommends the petition be denied. 2019-00050 Page 4 of 4 gi DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 = F.A.C. F LORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193 155(8)(1), 194.036, 194 171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00053 Parcel ID 38844400003 Petitioner name MARCO SCOLA Property The petitioner is: 2 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address IDother, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary 2 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 65,500.00 65,500.00 65,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 20,374.00 20,374.00 20,374.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 20,374.00 20,374.00 20,374.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C.]. Z1 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/14/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/15/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ 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 2019-00053 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00053: Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. 2019-00053 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00057 Parcel ID 12880680007 Petitioner name BOSTON, JOHN P & SUSAN W Property 725 HARBOUR DR The petitioner is: l taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 121I Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,033,223.00 3,033,223.00 2,400,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,033,223.00 3,033,223.00 2,400,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,983,223.00 2,983,223.00 2,350,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/25/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiln El 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 2019-00057 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00057: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner's representative's Mr. Boston and Mrs. Boston. 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$3,033,223. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 725 Harbour Drive, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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. PET provided evidence which included the purchase of the property July 2018 for $2,400,000. He explained the property was purchased in an arm's length sale 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 2019-00057 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 54- 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 that the property sale of$2,400,000 was credible. 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. (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. 2019-00057 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00057: 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 failed 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 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$2,400,000. 2019-00057 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-485 7 VALUE PETITION Rule12D-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDNCollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00058 Parcel ID 16004760000 Petitioner name SAMUEL, ROWAN JARROD, KARYN ALYSU Property 720 BELAIRCT The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,459,265.00 1,459,265.00 1,100,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,248,079.00 1,248,079.00 888,814.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,198,079.00 1,198,079.00 838,814.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00058 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00058: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner's Mr. Rowan and Mrs. Rowan. 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$1,459,265. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 720 Belair Ct, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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. PET provided evidence which included land value sales data. 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, 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 2019-00058 Page 2 of 4 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 54- 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 found the PET's evidence was credible and 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 PEI'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 2019-00058: 2019-00058 Page 3 of 4 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 petitioner's evidence overcame the presumption. The evidence provided 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$1,100,000. 2019-00058 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC GI a EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION F.A.C. Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00073 Parcel ID 38911600008 Petitioner name MACHADO, DAVID Property 3890 72NDAVE NE The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address 0 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34120 Decision Summary 1Z1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 295,965.00 264,983.00 264,983.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 295,965.00 264,983.00 264,983.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 245,965.00 214,983.00 214,983.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Qd' rnmeegOdnm El Homestead 0 Widow/er 0 Blind 0 Totally and permanently disabled veteran 0 Low-income senior 0 Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify 0 Parent/grandparent assessment reduction 0 Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ✓❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference _ 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/11/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at 0 AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2019 0 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 2019-00073 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact: Petition 73 concerns the denial of a transfer of the homestead assessment difference. Petitioner is Dave Machado and did not attend the hearing. The petition does not indicate Petitioner's intention not to attend the hearing or state good cause. No request for rescheduling had been granted or was pending. Property Appraiser's Office was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. Conclusions of Law: The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(9)(B), F.A.C.]. 2019-00073 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION F.A.C. Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00078 Parcel ID 38453280009 Petitioner name JOHNSON SR, RICHARD A Property 6771 BOTTLEBRUSH LN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' 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 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 468,446.00 468,446.00 468,446.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 468,446.00 468,446.00 468,446.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 468,446.00 468,446.00 468,446.00 *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 ✓❑ Homestead ❑Widow/er ❑ Blind El Totally and permanently disabled veteran El Low-income senior El Disabled El Disabled veteran El Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military El Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment differenceQualifying improvement ❑Change of ownership or control 8 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/31/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2019 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at E1 AM 0 PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2019 ❑ 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 2019-00078 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact: Petitioners were Richard A. Johnson, Sr. and his wife, Rosie. They are petitioning the denial of a homestead exemption for a residence located at 6771 Bottlebrush Lane, Naples, Florida. This is a home they have owned for 32 years and which enjoyed a homestead exemption until 2019. (Johnson) Both Petitioners were present. The Property Appraiser's Office ("PAO") was represented by Annabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. All persons were sworn in. The PAO admitted its letter requesting evidence into evidence as PAO Exhibit 1. There was no objection. The PAO admitted its evidence package consisting of 20 pages into evidence as PAO Composite Exhibit 2. There was no objection. Petitioner had no evidence admitted other than their oral testimony. Petitioners also own a residence at 5280 Boxwood Way, Naples, Florida. The land was purchased in 2017 and the residence was completed in November, 2018 (Rosie Johnson). Petitioners owned Rick Johnson's Tire Services at that time and took title to the land in the name of an LLC as had been Mr. Johnson's practice in order to avoid subjecting the property to potential judgment liens from the business. (Johnson; PAO Ex. 2- 2017 Deed) In the meantime, Petitioners had listed the Bottlebrush residence for sale and the MLS photographs showed the residence vacate as of October, 2018. (PAO Ex. 2--p. 12-13) On October 1, 2018, Petitioners changed the address of their primary residence on their drivers licenses from Bottlebrush to Boxwood Lane. (PAO Ex. 2, p.10) The January homestead status letter mailed to the Petitioners by the PAO was returned with a forwarding address of Boxwood Way. (PAO Ex.2--copy of letter). This prompted a homestead questionnaire letter in March, 2019, from the PAO, which was completed by Rosie Johnson. Although Mrs. Johnson's answers on the form indicated that they had moved to Boxwood Way and that 5280 Boxwood Way was their new residence, they also indicated that the Bottlebrush property was Petitioners' legal residence as of January. (PAO Ex. 2, p. 9) On May 17, 2019, PAO informed Petitioners by certified mail that the homestead exemption for the Bottlebrush property had been removed due to the fact that the Petitioners did not reside there. (PAO Ex. 2, p. 15) This notification presented the statutory reasons for the removal in clear language in accordance with s. 196.193(5), Fla. Stat. Title to the Boxwood property was transferred from the LLC to Petitioners' individual names in February 2019 after they were informed that an LLC would not qualify for a homestead exemption. This was done to support an application for a homestead exemption in 2020. (Ybaceta; Johnson) 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 2019-00078 Page 2 of 3 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 of a homestead exemption for the Bottlebrush residence was wrong. To do so, Petitioners need to prove that they resided on the property, intending to make it their permanent residence as of January 1, 2019. Before considering Petitioner's evidence, however, the Special Magistrate must first determine if the notice of denial of the homestead exemption meets the statutory criteria of S. 196.193(5)(b), Fla. Stat. The May 17, 2019 notice given by the PAO was found to be valid; therefore the admitted evidence was considered. Although Petitioners stated in the March questionnaire that the Bottlebrush residence was their legal residence in January, they did not dispute at the hearing that they were not residing in the home as of that date. In fact there was no credible and relevant evidence presented to show that the Bottlebrush property was maintained as the Petitioners' permanent residence. To the contrary, the change of postal address, Petitioners' certified statements on the questionnaire, the change of primary residence on their drivers' licenses and their own testimony showed that the new home on Boxwood Way was their new residence. It was clear from the photos from the MLS listing of the property in October, 2018, that the Bottlebrush residence was not occupied at that time. (PAO Ex. 2, pp. 12, 13) Petitioners failed to show by a preponderance of all credible and relevant evidence that the Bottlebrush property was their permanent residence as of January 1, 2019. Consequently, the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2019-00078 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V FPI VALUE PETITION 17 Rule 12D-16.002 ! F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. j These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00085 Parcel ID 21961000351 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LTD Property 2505 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 0 other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 8,745,756.00 8,745,756.00 8,745,756.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,384,484.00 7,384,484.00 7,384,484.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,384,484.00 7,384,484.00 7,384,484.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/14/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/15/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqm 0 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 2019-00085 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00085: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $8,745,756. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, known as Eldorado Furniture store. The building area is 43,964-sf. the land size is 168,141-sf or 3.86 acres. The building was built in 1996 with an effective age of 2015. The property sold in September 2016 for $10,350,000, the building was renovated at a cost of$2,525,828 as per the issued permit for a total of$12,875,828. The properties are located at 2505 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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. 2019-00085 Page 2 of 7 PAO, Mr. Quinby presented a report containing 64 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, permits issued to the property since the sale, and the subject 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 16 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 635,540-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvements for some of the sales, ranges from $17.18 to $55.54/sf. The mean of all the sales is $31.58/sf and the median is $31.65/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $30.00/sf x 168,141-sf or $5,044,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $5,888,836, impact fees at $757,312, and the land value is estimated at $5,044,230 for a total cost of $11,690,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from March 2016 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 12,800-sf to 55,048-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 44,765-sf to 301,000-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 17% to 45%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 26.1%. The buildings were built from 1990 to 2018. The sales range from $169.85 to $547.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$300.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$235.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $250.00/sf of building area including land or $10,991,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/ sf. 2019-00085 Page 3 of 7 PAO used a rent of$18.00/sf for a gross rent of$791,352. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at a mean 13.69%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $39,568. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 13.69%. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% or $150,357. The net operating income (NOI) is $601,428. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.4% and loaded the tax rate of 1.1% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$601,428 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$8,019,000 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 2019-00085 Page 4 of 7 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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). 2019-00085 Page 5 of 7 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. PET presented a report containing 20-pages which consisted of a cover letter and comparable improved sales and land sales with property record cards for each sale. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided three improved sales located in Naples. The improved sales sold from September 2018 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 17,640-sf to 30,585-sf with an indicated value range from $164.13 to $212.52/sf of building are including land. PET provided three land sales in Naples that sold between May 2017 and April 2018. The land sales range in size from 49,370-sf to 137,673-sf and $16.35 to $25.3 1/sf. PET does not provide a value for the property. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's building sales are inferior in quality and location to the subject. One sale is located on Trade Center Way, mostly an industrial area, one sale is a strip center located east of the subject near Collier Boulevard. The subject is well located at the corner of Pine Ridge and Airport Pulling Road. PAO indicated PET's land sales are older sales in inferior locations compared to the subject. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's evidence was not considered comparable to the subject property in location and quality of improved sales. 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 2019-00085: 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 2019-00085 Page 6 of 7 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 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. 2019-00085 Page 7 of 7 j DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0/02 F.A.C. 6 Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00097 Parcel ID 37392680101 Petitioner name HAL ZATORSKI Property 1830 JUNGBLVDE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 121 Granted your petition ❑ 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 597,552.00 597,552.00 560,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 597,552.00 597,552.00 560,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 547,552.00 547,552.00 510,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/02/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axil ❑ 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 2019-00097 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00097: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner's representative's Bradley W. Butcher, Esq. 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$597,552. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 1830 Jung Blvd. E., Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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. PET provided evidence which included an appraisal of the property for $560,000. 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, 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. 2019-00097 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 54- 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 that the property value of$560,000 was credible did support and overcome the burden pf 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. 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 2019-00097: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. 2019-00097 Page 3 of 4 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 petitioner's evidence prevailed with a preponderance of the evidence. PAO's value is incorrect. SM recommends the petition be granted with a revised new just value of$560,000. 2019-00097 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00126 Parcel ID 74510040007 Petitioner name NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORP Property 10949 PARNU ST The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IZ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 5,516,859.00 5,516,859.00 5,516,859.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,516,859.00 5,516,859.00 5,516,859.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,516,859.00 5,516,859.00 5,516,859.00 *A11 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) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/26/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ 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 2019-00126 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00126: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $5,516,859. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C skilled nursing and assisted living facility, known as Solaris Senior Living North Naples. The building area is 45,115-sf. the land size is 444,312-sf or 10.20 acres. The building was built in 1992/27 years with an effective age of 25 years. The facility has 96 units-60 skilled beds and 36 assisted living beds. The property is located at 10949 Parnu Street Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 48 pages. The report included the evidence and 2019-00126 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, zoning map, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the subject deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies operating expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), website information on the subject, impact fees 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 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Collier County. The land sales occurred from October 2013 to September 2018. The land sales range in size from 115,434-sf to 1,489,316-sf; the adjusted sale prices range from $8.72 to $19.62/sf. All the sales are zoned for apartment buildings. Sale #5 sold in January 2016 and is developed with an assisted living facility; this property sold for $9.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $12.92/sf and the median is $11.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $11.00/sf x 444,312-sf or $4,887,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $2,214,482, impact fees at $366,101, and the land value is estimated at $4,887,432 for a total cost of $7,468,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 sales of skilled, rehab, memory care and assisted living properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from July 2013 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 30,987-sf to 433,227-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 72,098-sf to 1,012,770-sf with a building to land ratio ranging from 9% to 55%, the subject has a ratio of 10.2%. The buildings were built from 1995 to 2004. The sales range from $139.00 to $371.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$190.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$152.00/sf of building area including land. Sale # 1 is a recent sale in close proximity to the subject; this sale sold for $142.00/sf. PAO placed most emphasis on this sale. PAO reconciled a value at $140.00/sf of building area including land or $6,316,000 less tangible personal property (TPP) of$244,423 for an indicated value of$6,072,000 rounded. PAO provided a value based on the price per units. The improved sales mentioned range from 52 to 359 units with a range in value from $65,027 to $181,560 per unit. Sale 1# , a recent sale, has 74 units and sold for $81,081 per unit. The mean price per unit is $101,000 and the median price is $88,000/unit. PAO reconciled at $80,000/unit or 2019-00126 Page 3 of 8 $7,680,000 less TPP of$244,423 indicates a value of$7,436,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value of the subject by the Sales Comparison Approach at $6,500,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support, (in the addenda) for assisted living facilities market rents, vacancies, operating expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates). The data is compiled by real estate market surveys generated by companies such as Realty Rates, REIS, CoStar, Collier County's confidential rental report (information provided by property owners) and field surveys. Market rents from the above sources, in Collier County ranges from $1.18 to $3.33/sf per month. PAO used $3.50/sf/month or $42.00/sf of building area for a gross income of $1,894,830. The vacancy support, from the above sources, in the US, Southwest Florida and Collier County, range from 3.5% to 13.85%. Vacancies in Collier County range from 8.3% to 13.85%. PAO used a vacancy of 10% or $189,483. The operating expenses support, from the above sources, in Collier County, range from 57.75% to 71.7%%. PAO used an operating expense of 60% of effective gross income or $1,023,208. The net operating income (NOI) is $682,139. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from the above market survey sources. The average cap rate in the US is 8.92%, Southwest Florida has an average cap rate of 6.33%. PAO used a cap rate of 8.8% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 10%. The NOI of$682,139 capitalized at 10.00% indicates a value of$6,821,000 less TPP of $244,423 indicates a value of$6,577,000 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 2019-00126 Page 4 of 8 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-page report submitted. 2019-00126 Page 5 of 8 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. PET presented two report containing 12 pages each. One report contains the statement of income and expenses for the subject for the end of December 2018. The other report was the income and expenses for the end of December 2016 and December 2017. As rebuttal, PET provided 4 pages which consisted of a letter describing the number of beds at the facility and the rent being paid for the facility, an Income Approach, and a survey of cap rates from CBRE senior housing survey dated winter of 2018. All of PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided income and expenses for the facility for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The facility had negative earnings in the year 2016 of$598,005, positive earnings of $205,810 in 2017 and positive earning, although a decline in earnings of$153,810 in 2018. PET indicated in the rebuttal letter that Solaris Healthcare leases the facility on a modified triple-net basis for an annual income of$400,000, plus a percentage based on occupancy. PET provided an Income Approach using a gross rent of$440,039 or $9.75/sf or $0.81/ sf/month. PET deducted expenses of management of 5% of the income, liability insurance and reserves for repair and replacement for a total expense of$57,025. The NOI is $383,014. PET provided a survey of cap rates from CBRE, winter 2018 for senior housing. The survey provides cap rates for Class A, B and C facilities located in North Carolina and Alabama that range from 6% to 10 % in Alabama and 10% to 16% in North Carolina. PET used a cap rate of 12%. 2019-00126 Page 6 of 8 The NOI of$383,014 capitalized at 12.00% indicates a value of$3,191,784. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the three approaches were developed and solid land sales were provided. PAO indicated the subject has a large land area with potential for expansion. PAO indicated some senior facilities in Naples are expanding their facilities. PAO indicated PET's income is based on a leased fee using a contract rent. PAO used market rents based on comparable rents in Collier County. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's improved sales are of assisted living facilities, while the subject is a skilled nursing home with a small assisted living component. Assisted living facilities typically are larger with more amenities and sell at a much higher price than skilled nursing homes. PET indicated PAO used a gross rent of$42.00/sf, which is not credible. PET indicated they have provided documentation of the current lease, which reflects an arms-length negotiated rent. SM has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided the three approaches to value. The Cost Approach provides the value of the land, which is estimated at $4,887,000, a large component of the value for the subject. PAO's improved sales are a combination of skilled nursing, assisted living, memory care and rehab facilities. PAO's sale # 1 is located across the street from the subject and is a 74-unit facility with 42,307-sf, of skilled nursing, assisted living, memory care and independent living, similar to the subject. This property sold in December 2018 for $81,081/unit. It was built in 1995 (subject 1992), and the building to land ratio is 27% (subject 10.2%). This facility is slightly superior to the subject in unit size and inferior to the subject in land size. The subject's just value is $57,467/unit substantially lower than the sale price of this most comparable sale at $81,081/unit. PET provided the income and expense statement for the facility for the years 2016- 2018. The statement includes income and expenses from all sources for the business and real estate. For the rebuttal, PET provided the annual contract lease payment with related expenses for the real estate only. PET used the upper end of the cap rate range of facilities located out of state, indicating a lower 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 2019-00126: 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 2019-00126 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00126 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00140 Parcel ID 00168880007 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 8979 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34108 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition /I Granted your petition ❑ 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 23,929,881.00 23,929,881.00 20,750,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 19,114,245.00 19,114,245.00 19,114,245.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 19,114,245.00 19,114,245.00 19,114,245.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00140 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00140: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a shopping center known as the "Pavilion Shopping Center", which was built in 1983 & 1987. The subject's address is 8979 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the NW quadrant of Tamiami Trail North and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The adjusted building area is 161,531 SF situated upon a site of 815,491 SF (i.e. 18.72 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$23,929,881 or $148/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, or $16,309,820 plus $2,694,311 of impact fees for a total of$19,004,131 (which is 79.4% of the total assessment). The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $11,454,073 & site improvements/paving at $984,548, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $31,443,000 to support the subject's assessment. The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 2 actual land sales). Land Sales#10 closed for $17.18/SF in early 2016, and #11 (on the northern end of Tamiami Trail in Collier County) closed for $26.49/SF in mid-2014 for a Mercedes car dealership. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 9 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of$20/SF appears reasonable for the subject's good location at the NW quadrant of Tamiami Trail North and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The land residual indicators tend to lend support, but they are given less weight because they are not true land sales. There appears to be missing pages from the full Marshall valuation, as only the summary report is provided. It is less detailed to allow for better analysis. Only 1 summary page is shown, which makes it a little more difficult to follow through all inputs and items in the PAO's Cost Approach. It appears the PAO applies 23.0% weighted average physical depreciation to buildings with an effective age the PAO estimates at 20 years. Assuming a 50-year life, a 40% level of depreciation appears more 2019-00140 Page 2 of 5 reasonable. But (based upon my calculations) that would lower the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion to about $28.9M, which still adequately supports the PAO's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 161,531 SF = $32,306,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #2 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject and its price/SF indicator upward). Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). In conclusion, Sale #3 ($271.15/SF), #6 ($247.58/SF), and #7 ($231.32/SF) are given greater weight, since they are recent anchored sales in Collier County. The PAO's concluded $200/SF indicator appears very reasonable for the subject's exclusive location. [before any COS is applied]. Even with 15% COS consideration, the resulting figure would be $27,460,000, which is still greater than the contested just value of$23,929,881. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent for all 161,531 SF at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$2,544,113 for a value indication of$31,801,000, or $187/SF. The PET (as will be shown) breaks down the subject's rents into size categories, as is not uncommon when estimating the value of shopping centers. This is often a very good idea, given (in the subject's case) the two largest tenants comprise 50.8% of the total square feet. In addition, the 'sub anchors' (a.k.a. "junior anchors") also frequently will have rents less than the smaller `local' tenants. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 114 pages (in 2 submittals to Axia) of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $20,750,000 [Note: This is a corrected figure I derived by removing the comingled TP-141 figures out of the PET's Income Approach presentation for TP-140. TP-141 had its own (separate) hearing, given the PAO had separate evident related to it.] The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon based upon multiple rental group categories. The PET estimates rent for two of the largest anchor spaces [movie theater of 31,118 SF @ $10/SF gross and LA Fitness of 50,795 SF @ $9/SF gross]. The rent for multiple sub-anchors was projected at $27.25/SF, one sub-anchor @ $24/SF, and 49,110 SF of local space at $35.75/SF. Vacancy for the two large anchors was 5%, 10% for sub-anchors, and 15% for local tenants. [Note: The `Flemings outparcel was removed from this portion of evidence, as it was heard separately in 2019-00140 Page 3 of 5 TP-141]. The PET projects $5.75/SF expenses and applies an 8.09% loaded cap rate to the [corrected] NOI of$2,004,993. The PET also estimates lease-up costs of$372,347 pertaining to two vacant spaces (10,698 SF & 5,788 SF). The PET concludes a value of $20,750,000 [after removing figures related to TP-141 heard separately]. The PET has a great deal of supporting rental evidence pertaining to various tenant bay sizes. It is noted that the PAO's Income Approach is based upon 161,532 SF, while the PET uses 161,245 SF. The PAO's additional 287 SF is not highly significant to this ruling and basically lost in rounding of the value. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 11 improved sales in Collier, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pasco counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $57.07-$130.98/SF. From the mean of the sales (after 15% COS consideration), the PET concludes $94.24/SF X 168,090 SF = $15,841,366 for the Sales Comparison Approach. However, there are flaws associated with how that mean $/SF figure is derived. I give no weight to the 4th sale (Sears single-user box at Coastland Mall that was demolished), give it was not an open-market transaction. I also give no weight to PET's Sale #3, which closed in July 2019 and is not timely for consideration. The balance of 9 remaining sales all come from market areas and locations highly questionable for comparability to the subject's Collier County location. As an example, I do not believe Valrico and New Port Richey make the best comparisons for the Naples area. Furthermore, the anchor tenants (if any) are not very well defined for the sale comps in the limited back-up documentation related to those sales. RULING: While the PAO does a reasonably good job with the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach, the preferred approach when dealing with various sizes of tenant spaces is demonstrated by the PET. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET, due to a far more simplistic attempt at the Income Approach by the PAO than this property warrants. Basically, I give greater weight to the PET's analysis of appropriate revenue projections [rents and V&C estimates]. The PET & PAO are in basic agreement in terms of the capitalization rate. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be lowered to $20,750,000 in conjunction with the PET's Income Approach figures [with minor items related to TP-141 removed]. It is also worthy to note that this ruling results in an increase of$3,373,414 (i.e. 19.4%) above the subject's 2018 assessment; however, it is far less than the $6,553,295 (i.e. 37.7%) increase originally proposed by the PAO coming into this hearing. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00140: 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 2019-00140 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00140 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00141 Parcel ID 00176685207 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 8985 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,294,622.00 2,294,622.00 2,294,622.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,895,493.00 1,895,493.00 1,895,493.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,895,493.00 1,895,493.00 1,895,493.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/25/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00141 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00141: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as the `Flemings Restaurant' built in 2004. The subject's address is 78985 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 6,559 SF situated upon a site of 42,680 SF (i.e. 0.98 acres). This petition is an outparcel to the subject of related petition (TP-140) for the Pavilion Shopping Center. The PAO provided separate evidence for this outparcel (TP-140), while the PET's evidence was comingled within TP-141. Regardless, there were separate hearings for each petition, as TP-141 (Flemings Restaurant) has its own H&BU and could easily be sold separately. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$2,294,622 or $349.84/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, PwC cap rate analysis, , property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF X 42,680 SF = $1,707,200, plus $468,760 of impact fees for a total of$2,175,960 (which is 94.8% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 13 commercial land sale indicators. The first 8 are `residual' indicators, while the last 5 are actual site sales (ranging from $28.53/SF to $55.54/SF). Residual #3 is a Ruby Tuesday's restaurant with a similar site size and indicator of$42.47/SF. Anchor tenants in the adjacent center include a movie theater and LA Fitness. The subject also has good exposure to Tamiami Trail North. The PAO's land value estimate does appear reasonable and well supported. The PAO does provided limited back-up cost information from a Marshall Valuation Summary Report, as well as impact fee calculations. Depreciation is estimated by the PAO at 26%, which appears reasonable based upon the PAO's effective age estimate of 15 years (and if assuming a 55-year life). The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $876,113 & site improvements/paving at $60,179, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,112,000 to support the subject's $2,294,622 assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 10 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $349.84-$986.37/SF. The PAO gives most weight to sales 2019-00141 Page 2 of 4 1 ($750/SF), 2 (a dark Ruby Tuesday's @ $519.77/SF) & 10 (Felipe's Mexican restaurant outparcel @ $536/SF). The PAO concludes $650/SF X 6,559 SF = $4,263,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The just value contested is $2,294,622, or $349.84/ SF. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $40/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$211,856 for a value indication of$2,648,000, or $404/SF. 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 = 94.8% of the PAO's total assessment. Given the improvements were built in 2004, they do appear to add significant extra value to the overall property. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted 114 pages (in 2 submittals to Axia) as part of the related petition (TP-140) for the Pavilion Shopping Center. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, subject's location map, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market rent data, CoStar cap rate data, mini warehouse market expense analysis, mini warehouse insurance market rate analysis, CBRE self-storage expense report, realtyrates.com investor survey, Comparable Sales Analysis, comparables summary sheet with photographs, comparable tax roll sheet, and Form DR-481. The PET comingled his evidence with the adjacent shopping center with only limited income data, but that data is not necessarily specific to restaurants or outparcels. Given land value is also quite relevant for outparcels and important to provide a baseline of value, the PET should have provided outparcel or small commercial land sales. The PET fails to do so and does not adequately address H&BU or size [FS 193.011 (2) & (4)]. The PET's presentation is not adequate to refute the PAO's presentation, but does address rents projected at $27.25/SF. RULING: The PAO does a good job of supporting the assessment, particularly with regard to the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. Often, outparcels are purchased for owner/buyer occupancy. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00141: 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 2019-00141 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 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. 2019-00141 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD $ R. 01/517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00142 Parcel ID 00274720006 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 3555 RADIO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Valuepresented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,849,116.00 5,849,116.00 5,239,400.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,118,467.00 4,118,467.00 4,118,467.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,118,467.00 4,118,467.00 4,118,467.00 *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) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/29/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00142 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00142: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Public Storage mini warehouse built in 1986, 1988, & 1990. The subject's address is 3555 Radio Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 71,628 SF situated upon a site of 194,713 SF (i.e. 4.47 acres). The PET reports the subject to be at 93.7% occupancy on the assessment date. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in April 2016 for $3,955,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$5,849,116 or $81.66/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at [$1M/acre] $22.96/SF X 194,713 SF =$4,469,995, plus $95,305 of impact fees for a total of$4,565,300 (which is 78.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. The first 5 & #8 and #9 were `residual' indicators given less weight, while the remaining 4 were actual land sale transactions that provide very good support 2019-00142 Page 2 of 6 for the PRO's land value estimate, particularly with regard to similar zoning traits as the subject's `industrial' zoning. In fact, Land Sales 7, 10, & 11 were all developed with self-storage facilities, which adds a great deal of credibility to the PAO's land valuation. 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 $1,117,920 & site improvements/paving at $480,498, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$6,164,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22 [in Ft. Myers] - $157.64/SF. Only 3 (#3, 4, & #8) of the 8 sales are in Collier County, while the remaining 5 are in Lee County. The PAO concludes $110/SF X 71,628 SF of adjusted area = $7,879,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Sale #3 was a 1/2018 sale for 116.28/SF, Sale #4 was a 3/2017 sale for $157.64/SF, and #8 was a 10/2016 sale for $144.20/SF of adjusted area. The subject's assessment of$5,849,116 or $81.66/SF of adjusted building area; thus, the subject's assessment appears reasonable, regardless of considering Lee or Collier sales and giving some consideration for minor appreciation for the older sales. The PAO gave most weight to Collier Sales #3 & #4, but less weight to #8 because it was part of a portfolio sale. It is noted that the PAO uses the subject's `adjusted' square feet for comparative purposes with the comparable sales. That is not the case with the PET, as will be discussed later in this ruling. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12.50/SF gross [applied to the subject's adjusted SF], vacancy/collection loss at 10.0% [same as PET], expenses at 30.0% [same as PET], and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [PET uses 8.65%] to NOI of $564,071 for a value indication of$7,051,000, or $98.44/SF of adjusted space. Following the lead of the PET, the PAO failed to consider any open storage revenue. However, there is outdoor storage revenue and it was not accounted for by either party. Aerial photo evidence appears to indicate approximately 14 open trailer/boat spaces. Had the PET walked the subject property, this would have been evident, given it is quite evident from the aerial photographs. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 64 pages of the subject's evidence [via 2 submittals in Axia] and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, subject's location map, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market rent data, CoStar cap rate data, mini warehouse market expense analysis, mini warehouse insurance market rate analysis, CBRE self-storage expense report, realtyrates.com investor survey, Comparable Sales Analysis, comparables summary sheet with photographs, comparable tax roll sheet, and Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $4,613,000, which would be a 15.3% increase over 2018. The PET's evidence indicates the subject's just value increased by a substantial $1,848,359 (i.e. 46.2%) from 2018 to 2019. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $12.50/SF applied to 64,338 (apparently `rentable' or `NRA') square feet; whereas, the PAO used the total adjusted square feet. [Note: The PAO was also consistent in his Sales Comparison 2019-00142 Page 3 of 6 Approach by comparing `adjusted' to `adjusted' square feet with the comparable sales.] There is nothing wrong with using the NRA, in fact it is preferred when it is known (or can be reasonably estimated). However, it is important to be consistent. In self-storage facilities, there can be lost space due to the rental office, hallways, bathrooms, and (when applicable) a manager's apartment. The PET goes on to project 10.0% vacancy, $3.95/SF expenses (i.e. 35.1%), and a loaded cap rate of 8.65% (i.e. 7.496% +1.154% millage rate). The PET concludes a preliminary value of$5,427,341, or $4,613,000 (after 15% COS). The PET apparently did not visit the subject and did not get many of the easily obtainable reports that could have been generated by the owner (or on-site manager) related to the unit mix (i.e. number of units by size), indication as to how much space has A/C, open storage spaces (and rents), etc. The PET does not know the ratio of climate- controlled (A/C) space in the property. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes improved sales in both Collier and Lee counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $24.79- $79.01/SF, and most of those sales are in Lee County. The PET concludes $56.32/SF X 64,338 SF = $3,623,661 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET does provide a sale comp in Miami at 640 NW 133rd Street that sold (almost vacant) for $159.31/SF. That sale provided by the PET tends to be supportive of the subject's $81.66/SF of adjusted building area. The PET does provide a cap rate survey, expense survey, and reasonably good back-up information for inputs. However, it would have been much better if the PET had first obtained the mix of unit sizes and determined which units are climate controlled. The PET makes no distinction for A/C space rental differences, and it does impact the revenue, expenses, and value. Again, the PET is working directly for the property owner and the owner (and on-site manager) are quite capable of providing this information almost instantly with industry software geared to producing a wide array of reports. RULING: 1.There is a substantial size difference used in the respective income approaches. The PAO uses the `adjusted' building area of 71,628 SF, while the PET uses (what he thinks might be) the rentable area of 64,338 SF. The difference of 10.2% equates to 7,290 SF. A/C vs. non-A/C space is not clearly defined by either party. The PET verbally states there is less than 20% A/C, yet he has apparently never been to the property. Visually (from aerials and other photographs in evidence), it does appear that the majority [possibly 70% or more] of space is not climate controlled. However, some of the space does appear to be. The PAO cannot readily go inside the subject to verify all spaces; thus, must make assumptions from the data available when preparing his assessment. The PET (working directly for the owner) should be able to provide a very compelling and accurate Income Approach using the subject's specific mix, and can still project market rates for each type of storage space in that mix (based upon size and A/C or non-A/C, open storage, etc.). 2. PET's Sales Comparison Approach is an "apples-to-oranges" comparison of each 2019-00142 Page 4 of 6 comparable's "adjusted" SF, as compared to the subject's "rentable" space. This results in a gross distortion and underestimate in the PET's Sales Comparison Approach. Again, it is good to know the ratio of A/C space for the subject and each comparable to get a better gauge for the appropriate $/SF indicator. The only Collier improved sale used by both parties was PAO's #5 (PET's #2) that closed for $116.28/SF of adjusted area, (or $98.83/SF after 15% COS). This shared Collier sale supports the PAO's just value of $81.66/SF of adjusted building area. The PET apparently has the incorrect building size for that sale, as was verified by the PAO via testimony. The PET's LTB ratio is actually 2.72 based upon the `adjusted' building size, which is the size used for comparison with all the comparable properties in the PET's sales grid. 3. As for the Income Approaches for both parties to the hearing, it appears both leave questions as to the unit count, mix, A/C vs. non-A/C space, and open storage revenue. From the photographic evidence, there is outdoor storage revenue not accounted for by either party. Aerial photo evidence appears to indicate at least 14 open trailer/boat spaces occupied and not included in the revenue projections by either party to the hearing. While I understand the analysis of self-storage facilities takes some skill, it also takes due diligence to verify the physical nature of the property, and in a similar fashion the nature of the comparable sales. I give no weight or reliability to either party's Income Approach presentation. The PET (in particular) has no excuse for the failure to provide an accurate physical breakdown of the quantity and nature of space offered for rent at the subject property. In cases where the property owner is not cooperative, the PAO has other means of obtaining better information via an analysis of blueprints, conducting a better site inspection, and checking with other sources of information. This goes for the subject, as well as the comparable sales. Rental information is easily available, given almost all self-storage facilities advertise on the internet. 4. The only Collier improved sale used by both parties was PAO's #5 (PET's #2) that closed for $116.28/SF of adjusted area, (or $98.83/SF after 15% COS). This shared Collier sale supports an increase to the assessment, but with only one Collier shared sale with limited knowledge of its physical breakdown (and the subject's), I do not want to totally give full credit to the contested just value. From the information provided, I have a Cost Approach (with very good support for the land value + impact fees) from the PAO. The PAO's estimate of depreciation also appears reasonable in this case, because the buildings are simplistic in features and design. I give most weight to the PAO's Cost Approach value of$6,164,000, less 15% COS = $5,239,400. While the PET could have done a much better job providing relevant subject information, the weight & preponderance of evidence [by the PAO] favors a reduction to $5,239,400. This results in a just value increase of 15.2% from the 2018 assessment of$609,716; however, it is less than the 46.2% ($1,236,116) increase sought by the PAO's contested just value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00142: 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 2019-00142 Page 5 of 6 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. 2019-00142 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. s Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00143 Parcel ID 28440000024 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 7325 VD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 3410 ❑ other, explain: 34104 Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 8,626,910.00 8,626,910.00 8,626,910.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,595,524.00 8,595,524.00 8,595,524.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,595,524.00 8,595,524.00 8,595,524.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/29/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00143 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00143: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a mini warehouse built in 1999, 2000, & 2001. The subject's address is 7325 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 133,444 SF situated upon a site of 235,384 SF (i.e. 5.40 acres). The PET reports the subject to be at 94.97% occupancy on the assessment date. The PAO stated that their field inspection revealed that most of the 5 buildings are air conditioned, which enhances the value. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on June 1, 2014 for $18.5M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$8,626,910 or $64.65/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at [$1M/acre] $22.96/SF X 235,384 SF = $5,400,000, plus $177,554 of impact fees for a total of$5,577,554 (which is 64.7% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. The first 5, plus Land Sales #8 and #9 were `residual' indicators given less weight, while the remaining 4 were actual land sale transactions that provide very good support for the PAO's land value estimate, particularly with regard to similar zoning traits as the subject's type of use. In fact, Land Sales 7, 10, & 11 were all developed with self-storage facilities, which adds a great deal of credibility to the PAO's land valuation. 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 $4,776,505 & site improvements/paving at $190,930, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$10,545,000 to support the subject's assessment. The PAO's amount of depreciation deducted at 21.1% is almost $1M low, assuming an 18-year effective age & a 50-year life. However, this should be offset by the fact that the PAO fails to also consider the costs to get to stabilized occupancy (i.e. lease-up costs), some soft costs, and entrepreneurial profit. Thus, the Cost Approach would still be supportive of the PAO's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 10 sales. The sales have 2019-00143 Page 2 of 5 $/SF indicators that range from $60.37-$267.15/SF, with an average of$141.48/SF of adjusted area. There are 4 Collier sales (#1 @ $267.15/SF, #2 @ $206.36/SF, #5 @ $116.28/SF, & #6 @ 157.64/SF). The PAO concludes what appears to be a very conservative $110/SF X 133,444 SF = $14,679,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The first two Collier County sales (#1 & #2) are more modern/newer big box 100% A/C properties, which is why they reflect the upper end of value. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12.50/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of $1,050,872 for a value indication of$13,136,000, or $98.44/SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 62 pages of the subject's evidence [via 2 submittals in Axia] and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, subject's location map, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market rent data, CoStar cap rate data, mini warehouse market expense analysis, mini warehouse insurance market rate analysis, CBRE self-storage expense report, realtyrates.com investor survey, Comparable Sales Analysis, comparables summary sheet with photographs, comparable tax roll sheet, and Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $7,005,000, which would be a 10.4% decrease from 2018. The PET's evidence indicates the subject's just value increased by a substantial $1,621,910 (i.e. 10.4%) from 2018 to 2019. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $12.50/SF, applied to 98,206 (apparently `rentable' or `NRA') square feet; whereas, the PAO used the total adjusted square feet. [Note: The PAO was also consistent in his Sales Comparison Approach by comparing `adjusted' to `adjusted' square feet with the comparable sales.] There is nothing wrong with using the NRA, in fact it is preferred when it is known (or can be reasonably estimated). However, it is important to be consistent. In self-storage facilities, there can be lost space due to the rental office, hallways, bathrooms, and (when applicable) a manager's apartment. The PET is using 35,238 SF less square feet than the PAO uses in his Income Approach. The 35,238 SF represents a loss factor of 26.4% of from the PAO's adjusted SF used, which may be an excessive loss factor for common halls and other common areas not actually leased. The PET goes on to project 10.0% vacancy, $4.00/SF expenses and a loaded cap rate of 8.639% (7.50% + 1.139%). The PET concludes a preliminary value of$8,241,619, then deducts for 15% COS for a final income figure of$7,005,368. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes improved sales in both Collier and Lee counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $24.79- $79.01 SF, and 5 of the 6 sales provided are in Lee County. The only Collier sale used by the PET is at 6810 Collier Boulevard that incorrectly states its building area at 86,759 SF. Actually it was verified by the PAO to have 69359 adjusted SF. The PET concludes $56.32/SF X 98,206 `rentable SF = $5,531,183 (after 15% COS for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET's entire Sales Comparison Approach is an `apples-to- oranges' comparison, given the PET compares the subject's (assumed) rentable area to the lower `gross prices per square foot' derived from the improved sales. This 2019-00143 Page 3 of 5 undermines the credibility of the PET's entire approach; thus, it is given no weight. RULING: The PAO presents three approaches to value. I give stronger weight to the PAO's Cost Approach (with a sold land value estimate) and Sales Comparison Approach (with 4 good improved sales from Collier County). This petition (TP-143 with mostly A/ C space) was heard right after the self-storage petition TP-142 (with mostly non-A/C space). It is interesting that the PET uses the same rental rate of$12.50/SF for both petitions, when in fact the mostly A/C petition TP-143 should be at a significantly higher rate. As for the Income Approaches for both parties to the hearing, it appears both leave questions as to the unit count, mix, and A/C vs. non-A/C space. The PAO appears to have followed down the path presented in evidence first by the PET, then the PAO duplicated the same rental rate error instead of going to the market for logical A/C space rents. I give little weight to the PAO's Income Approach, and no weight to the PET's Income Approach presentation. The PET (in particular) has no excuse for the failure to provide an accurate physical breakdown of the quantity and nature of space offered for rent at the subject property. On-site management can easily provide many different reports for the physical and financial breakdown of the property. In cases where the property owner is not cooperative, the PAO has other means of obtaining better information via an analysis of blueprints, conducting a better site inspection, and checking with other sources of information. This goes for the subject, as well as the comparable sales. Rental information is easily available, given almost all self-storage facilities advertise on the internet. Basically, the PET's presentation is very weak when it comes to accurately describing and quantifying the types of spaces available and their respective rental rates. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00143: 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 2019-00143 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00143 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00144 Parcel ID 34520001005 Petitioner name TIM HART Property Thepetitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record NAPLES, FLTAMI3 113 E Q taxpayer's agent address FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IZ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 18,507,573.00 18,507,573.00 18,507,573.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,896,150.00 16,896,150.00 16,896,150.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,896,150.00 16,896,150.00 16,896,150.00 *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) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00144 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00144: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as "Freedom Square" shopping center built in 1994 & 1995. The subject's address is 12713 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 212,093 SF situated upon a site of 865,102 SF (i.e. 19.86 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in October 1997 for $11,602,600. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$18,507,573 or $87.26/SF of adjusted building area (or $21.39/SF of total land area). As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15/SF X the net site area of 865,102 SF = $12,976,530 plus $3,399,200 of impact fees for a total of$16,375,730 (which is 88.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 2 actual land sales). Land Sales#10 closed for $17.18/SF in early 2016, and #11 (on the northern end of Tamiami Trail in Collier County) closed for $26.49/SF in mid-2014. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 9 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of$15/SF appears reasonable for the subject's good location at the NW quadrant of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East. The land residual indicators tend to lend support, but they are given less weight because they are not true land sales. There appears to be missing pages from the full Marshall valuation, as only the summary report is provided, and it is less detailed for the multiple buildings constructed at different points in time. Only 2 summary pages are shown, which makes it a little more difficult to follow through all inputs and items in the PAO's Cost Approach. It appears the PAO applies 46.9% weighted average physical depreciation to buildings with an actual (and effective) age the PAO estimates at 24 & 25 years. Assuming a 50- year life, that level of depreciation appears within reason. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements at $8,230,035, & site improvements/paving at $1,079,191, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $25,685,000 to support the subject's assessment of$18,507,573. 2019-00144 Page 2 of 5 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #2 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject and its price/SF indicator upward). Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). In conclusion, Sale #3 ($271.15/SF), #6 ($247.58/SF), and #7 ($231.32/SF) are given greater weight by me, since they are recent grocery-anchored sales in Collier County. Because the subject's location is in the South Trail area (generally inferior to most of the sales), the PAO gives weight toward the lower indicators of Sale #5 ($110.99/SF with some vacancy issues when it sold), and the 2014 sale indicator of Sale #8 ($176.39/SF). Sale #8 is the prior sale of#7, which sold in late 2017 for $231.32/SF. The PAO concludes $125/SF X 212,093 SF = $26,512,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. That indicator per SF is clearly toward the conservative end of the sales provided for grocery-anchored centers, while the subject's assessment is even lower at $87.26/SF. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $8/SF gross for the [dark but still paying] anchor (Kmart) space of 116,946 SF, $12/SF gross for 56,547 SF for the grocery store (Publix) space, & $20/SF gross for 38,600 SF for local retail space. The PAO projects vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [6.860% + 1.140%] to NOI of$1,503,263 for a value indication of $18,791,000, or $88.60/SF, prior to any COS deduction. The contested just value is $18,507,573. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly based upon the data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees = 88.5% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 128 pages of the subject's evidence (via 2 submittals to Axia) and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET provides an undated rent roll, and a short-term World of Decor license agreement (for a seasonal lease), and a discount for lease-up for the K-mart (dark but paying) space. It is highly questionable whether a lease-up is warranted, given K-mart is still paying. Furthermore, the PET estimates a substantial $3,764,805 for lease-up costs associated with this space, even though they are still paying rent. Based upon the PET's cover page to his evidence, the PET seeks a value reduction to $13,100,000), which happens to be less than the PAO's land value estimate + impact fees that total $16,375,730. The PET also notes the subject's 2019 assessment increased by 20.5% from 2018. The PET also presents another version of their Income 2019-00144 Page 3 of 5 Approach showing the K-mart rent @ $1.25/SF and no lease-up costs, yet all other assumptions the same. It results in a value indicator of$8.181M, but it is given no weight by me (and very little weight by the PET). The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon 3 different rental group categories. The PET estimates 5% vacancy for the anchors [K-mart @ $8/SF gross & Publix @ 9/SF gross], 5% vacancy for Pet Supermarket's 10,000 SF @ $19.50/SF gross, & 10% vacancy for local space of 28,600 SF $33.25/SF. The PET projects $4.25/ SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 7.89%. The PET comes to a preliminary number of $19,146,993, then makes a substantial deduct of$3,764,805 for lease-up costs to arrive at a figure of$15,382,188. After a 15% COS deduction, the PET concludes a value of $13,074,860. I do note a slight difference in rentable area. The PAO bases his Income Approach on 212,093 SF, while the PET has 211,839 SF, resulting in a difference of 254 SF. This difference is insignificant and somewhat lost in the reconciliation and rounding process of this ruling. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes improved sales in Collier, Hillsborough, Manatee, Orange, Polk, Hernando, Pinellas, and Pasco counties. After considering 15% COS, the sales have $/SF indicators that range from $57.07- $77.95/SF. The PET concludes $56.81/SF X 211,839 SF = $12,035,368 for the Sales Comparison Approach. PET's Sale #1 (Sears in Coastland Mall) was not an arm's length sale & it was subsequently torn down. The other sale in Collier closed in 2014 for $70.31. If it were adjusted for time/market conditions at 5%/year, it would basically support the subject's just value of$87.26/SF. All of the remaining sales used by the PET closed in 2018, but are all in counties further away in other parts of Florida. I give no weight to the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, given most of the sales were specifically selected from no-Collier locations that lack sufficient comparability to the subject. RULING: The PET provides an undated rent roll, and a short-term World of Decor license agreement (for a seasonal lease), and a discount for lease-up for the K-mart (dark but paying) space. It is highly questionable/doubtful whether a lease-up is warranted, given K-mart apparently is still paying. Furthermore, the PET estimates a substantial $3,746,805 for lease-up costs associated with this space. I give greater weight of the evidence presented to a) the PAO's Cost Approach value of $25,685,000. Of that amount, it is noted the land value + impact fees equal $16,375,730, or 88.5% of the total just value. It would appear from the ground photos, aerials, and testimony that the improvements do have some degree of value above and beyond land value + impact fees. The PAO provided 7 sales of grocery-anchored centers in Collier County. (Note Sale/Resale #1 & #2 was the exception and not given consideration). The subject's just value equates to $87.26/SF of building area, which is well supported by all 7 of the PAO's sales with grocery stores dating back to 2014. The PET was also unable to provide any Collier sales from 2015 up to the assessment date that refute the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. Apparently, the PET (or the subject's owner) failed to provide the PAO with recent income/expense information as requested twice during the year via separate mailings. The PET also fails to adequately consider H&BU, as required by FS 193.011(2). This is because the PET is requesting a value reduction 2019-00144 Page 4 of 5 well below the combined land + impact fee value addressed by the PAO. The PET seeks a value reduction of$13,100,000, which happens to be less than the PAO's land value estimate + impact fees that total $16,375,730. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00144: 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. 2019-00144 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. IZ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00145 Parcel ID 56930960002 Petitioner name TIM HART Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address COLLIER BLVD ❑ ISLAND, FL 34145 other, explain: MARCO Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 18,007,893.00 18,007,893.00 18,007,893.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 17,277,651.00 17,277,651.00 17,277,651.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 17,277,651.00 17,277,651.00 17,277,651.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ' Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00145 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00145: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a shopping center known as "Marco Town Centre" built in 1974, 1983, 1984 & 2000. The subject's address is 1089 North Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 110,157 SF situated upon a site of 428,953 SF (i.e. 9.85 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in December 2011 for $24,627,000. The 2019 contested just value of$18,007,893 equates to 73.1% of that prior sales price (slightly more than 7 years ago). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$18,007,893 or $163.47/SF of adjusted building area, or $41.98/SF of land area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15,013,355, plus $1,811,277 of impact fees for a total of$16,824,632 (which is 93.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 15 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 6 actual land sales). Marco Island has limited commercial land. There were 4 (relatively) smaller site sales (i.e. #1 through #4) that closed for $/SF indicators of$27.63 [building torn down in 2018], $29.87, $42.65, and $47.38, respectively. All of those sites were less than 1.5 acres, while the subject is a much larger site of 9.85 acres. Land Sale #14 ($17.18/SF in 2016) and Land Sale #15 (26.49/SF in 2014) are very similar in size to the subject, yet they are in other [mostly inferior] parts of western Collier County (but not on Marco Island). Simply stated, Marco Island is an area of very limited commercial development and limited space for new development. Scarcity is a factor that gives existing commercial property some of its value. Several of the other `residual' land value indicators are also very supportive of the PAO's land value estimate of$35/SF, which I consider reasonable from the evidence provided. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $6,774,466 & site improvements/paving at $331,956, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$23,931,000 to support the subject's assessment of$18,007,893. 2019-00145 Page 2 of 5 The PAO does provided limited back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. Only 2 `summary' pages are shown from Marshall, which makes it a little more difficult to follow through all inputs and items in the PAO's Cost Approach. Four of the five buildings are indicated to have an effective age of 25 years, while one building (28,121 SF) has an effective age of 15 years. It would appear the PAO's apparent 29.7% weighted average physical depreciation to buildings is light, given 4 of the 5 have an effective age of 25 years. Thus, assuming a 50-year life, that weighted average level of depreciation closer to 45% would seem more logical. But (based upon my calculations) that would lower the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion to about $22.46M, which still adequately supports the PAO's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 110,157 SF = $22,031,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #2 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject and its price/SF indicator upward). Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). In conclusion, Sale #3 ($271.15/SF), #6 ($247.58/SF), and #7 ($231.32/SF) are given greater weight, since they are recent grocery-anchored sales in Collier County. The PAO's concluded $200/SF indicator appears very reasonable for the subject's exclusive location. [before any COS is applied]. Even with 15% COS consideration, the resulting figure would be $18,726,350, which is still greater than the contested just value of$18,007,893. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects $205/SF gross for the anchor (Publix) space of 28,121 SF, $25/SF gross for 3,900 SF for the `retail store' space, & also $25/SF gross for the remaining 78,136 SF of local space. Vacancy/collection loss was estimated at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$1,646,392 for a value indication of$20,580,000, or $187/SF. 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 = 93.4% of the PAO's total assessment. From the photographs in evidence, it would appear the building improvements still do contribute significantly to the overall property value. Per testimony by Mr. Redding, he notes that many new building permits were being issued during 2019 to continue maintaining the subject. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 112 pages (in 2 submittals to Axia) of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, site plan, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, 2019-00145 Page 3 of 5 ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $13,907,000. The PET indicates the subject has had some vacancy issues over recent years with occupancy levels of 76.5% (2019), 77.41% (2018), and 83.09% (2017). The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon 3 different rental group categories. The PET estimates 5% vacancy for the anchor space [Publix @ $10.15/ SF gross], 10% vacancy for the 6,120 SF space @ $20/SF gross, & 25% vacancy for the remaining local space of 75,875 SF @ $28.25/SF. The resulting vacancy equates to 22% of the PGI. The PET the projects $5.75/SF expenses and a loaded cap rate of 8.097% (7.0% + 1.097%) applied to the NOI of$1,354,840. The PET concludes a value of $13,907,060 (after a 15% COS discount and lease-up discount of$372,347). The PET indicates the subject has had some vacancy issues over recent years with occupancy levels of 76.5% (2019), 77.41% (2018), and 83.09% (2017). I question the PET's use of a discount for lease-up amounting to $41,657 for just 713 SF to be absorbed over 36 months, as well as the 6,120 SF space over 24 months. The lease-up discount makes no sense to me in this location & is given no weight. An undated rent roll was provided. It does show the prevailing Publix rent at $10.15/SF gross (used by the PET), along with all the other rents in the center. However, that Publix lease dates back to 1998 and that does not necessarily mean that it is the prevailing market rent for that space. It is noted the subject also does have a West Marine occupying 4,956 SF, which is a good tenant. Dunkin Donuts & the UPS Store are other notable tenants. While the PET does show an undated rent roll, he fails to include any historical profit & loss information, as was requested twice during the year via mail to all commercial owners from the PAO. I also question why the subject has recent vacancy issues, given it is in a market area of very limited commercial competition. There was no satisfactory explanation provided, and possibly it could be due to hurricane damage, mismanagement, and/or the owner's plans for renovations (related to permitting noted by the PAO that has subsequently happened during 2019). A more localized (i.e. Marco Island) type of vacancy analysis should have been provided by the PET to support such a high (i.e. 22%) projection of vacancy into perpetuity. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 11 improved sales in Collier, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pasco counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $57.07-$130.98/SF. From the mean (after 15% COS consideration), the PET concludes $94.24/SF X 109,882 SF = $10,355,648 for the Sales Comparison Approach. I give no weight to the 4th sale (Sears single-user box at Coastland Mall that was demolished), give it was not an open-market transaction. I also give no weight to PET's Sale #3, which closed in July 2019 and is not timely for consideration. The balance of 9 remaining sales all come from market areas and locations highly questionable for comparability to the more exclusive island location. As an example, I do not believe Valrico and New Port Richey make the best comparisons for Marco Island. Furthermore, the anchor tenants (if any) are not very well defined for the sale comps in the back-up documentation related to those sales. RULING: 1.The subject last sold in December 2011 for $24,627,000. The 2019 contested just value 2019-00145 Page 4 of 5 of$18,007,893 equates to 73.1% of that prior sales price (slightly more than 7 years ago). The general economy has been on an upward pace since the subject was acquired. 2.The PAO's assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU per F.S. 193.011 (2). The PAO's market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined) equate to 93.4% of the total assessment contested for this 9-year old building. The building improvements appear (via photographs) to add value. Furthermore, the subject's owner appears to be pulling additional permits to improve the subject and extend its remaining economic life. There was no testimony to suggest the improvements suffer significant (abnormal) depreciation or obsolescence. 3. The subject is located on a fairly exclusive island with very limited commercial development. Most of the comparable data supplied by the PET was non-Marco Island data. There were some data limitations for the PAO, as well, but at least the PAO did provide 4 land sales on Marco Island with the same C-4 zoning as the subject. For this hearing, the PAO's Cost Approach and improved sales of other Collier-area grocery- anchored shopping centers were given primary weight in support of the PAO's assessment. 4. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00145: 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. 2019-00145 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. s Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00146 Parcel ID 63518000526 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 2460 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 17I taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 12,792,799.00 12,792,799.00 10,484,885.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,534,204.00 10,534,204.00 10,484,885.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,534,204.00 10,534,204.00 10,484,885.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00146 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00146: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PETITIONS HEARD TOGETHER: TP-146, 147, 148 are being heard together, as they are all 3 components of the same operating entity and under the same ownership. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as "Naples Walk" shopping center built in 1999, 2000 & 2006. The subject's address is 2460-2500 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 127,533 SF situated upon a site of 704,418 SF (i.e. 16.17 net acres). [Note: The 6.75-acre drainage lake is not included in that site area figure.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has not been a recent sale of the subject since 2007. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$22,035,334 or $173/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF X the net sire area of 704,418 SF = $14,088,360 plus $2,194,547 of impact fees for a total of$16,413,042 (which is 74.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 2 actual land sales). Land Sales#10 (not very far from the subject) closed for $17.18/SF in early 2016, and #11 (on Tamiami Trail) closed for $26.49/SF in mid-2014. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 9 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of$20/SF appears reasonable for the subject's good location at the SE quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road. Land Residuals #1 & #9 are the closest properties and have indicators of$31.01/SF & $25.24/SF, respective to lend support, yet less weight is given to residual indicators (since they are not true land sales). There appears to be missing pages from the full Marshall valuation, as only the summary report is provided, and it is less detailed for the multiple buildings constructed at different points in time. Only 2 summary pages are shown, which makes it a little more difficult to follow through all inputs and items in the PAO's Cost Approach. It appears the PAO applies 22.9% weighted average physical depreciation to buildings with an 2019-00146 Page 2 of 7 actual (and effective) age the PAO estimates at 13,19, and 20 years. It would seem a greater depreciation factor closer to 35% would be warranted, assuming a 50-year life. This might lower the PAO's Cost approach indicator by about $1.4M to a figure closer to $25.636M, yet that would still be generally supportive of the PAO's assessment with an assessment ratio of 86% via that approach. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $9,245,762 & site improvements/paving at $1,428,920, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $26,958,000 to support the subject's assessment, yet again, a figure closer to $25.636M would appear more warranted with a little more physical depreciation applied, given the PAO's effective age estimates [before any COS is applied]. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #1 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject and its price/SF indicator upward). Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). In conclusion, Sale #3 ($271.15/SF), #6 ($247.58/SF), and #7 ($231.32/SF) are given greater weight, since they are recent grocery-anchored sales in Collier County. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 127,533 SF = $25,507,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach, which appears reasonable [before any COS is applied]. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects $15/SF gross for the anchor (Publix) space of 51,295 SF, $25/SF gross for 46,530 SF for the main center's local space, & $23.25/SF for 29,708 SF for the 2-story mixed office/retail space, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [6.911% + 1.089%] to NOI of $1,652,733 for a value indication of$20,659,000, or $162/SF [before any COS is applied]. It is noted the PAO's Income figure is less than the contested just value of $22,035,434. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly with the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 120 pages of evidence (in 2 submittals to Axia) and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, January 2019 rent roll, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $17,279,000 (as stated on his cover page of evidence), which happens to be slightly greater than the PAO's land value estimate + impact fees that total $16,413,042. The PET also notes the subject's 2019 assessment increased by 34.3% from 2018. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon 3 different rental 2019-00146 Page 3 of 7 group categories [described below], 5% vacancy for the anchor, & 10% vacancy for sub- anchor outparcel (7,100 SF), 15% vacancy for the local space, $6.20/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 8.089% (7.00% +1.089%). The PET concludes a value of$17,279,000 rounded (after 15% COS deduction). The PET's anchor rent was $10.60/SF gross for the 51,420 Publix space, given the rent roll shows Publix paying $10.59/SF gross, yet it is noted that rent dates back to a lease originally starting 8/5/1999. The PET projects $27.50/SF gross for the 'Row by Captain' space of 7,100 SF. The `local' spaces were priced at $30.55/SF gross for 66,453 SF. The PET had a separate exhibit to support new local space leases in the center with an average of$30.55/SF gross. A January 2019 rent roll was provided in evidence. The PET provides an exhibit for various major retail anchors (mostly grocery store chains) in various counties (3 from Collier, Miami-Dade, Hillsboro, Sarasota, Charlotte, Broward, & Palm Beach counties). The high on that list is $10.15/SF, while the mean is $7.69/SF with most leases originating in the 2015 to the early 2019-time frame in those various counties. The PET provides another 1-page exhibit for "Anchor Space Contract Rents", which is a long list of[mostly grocery store] spaces with an average gross rent of$8.68/SF & average size of 45,348 SF. There were some rents in the lower-to-mid teens (gross) per SF, with the highest in that survey of $14.21/SF for a Michael's store in Hillsborough County. The PET provides another roster/survey of `sub-anchor' contract rents with a mean of$13.23/SF. The PET includes various rents from numerous non-Collier (and generally inferior) areas, such as Inverness, Crystal River, Destin, etc. that I do not consider relevant to this hearing. The PET does provide a localized REIS report with a map and various rental sheets. The PET provides various other surveys, etc. related to cap rates. However, at this hearing, the PAO & PET are in basic agreement regarding cap rates, given the PET uses a loaded rate of 8.089%, while the PAO uses a loaded rate of 8.0%. I do note a slight difference in rentable area. The PAO bases his Income Approach on 127,535 SF, while the PET has 124,973 SF, resulting in a difference of 2,562 SF. This difference is not particularly that great and is somewhat lost in the reconciliation and rounding process of this ruling. The PET argues that the PET & PAO Income Approach presentations are actually very close in their bottom-line numbers (before & after COS consideration). This does appear to be true, given the majority of the difference can be noted by the fact that the PAO's NOI is $8,425 greater than the PET's NOI. For a property of this size, that is a very small difference (and perhaps explained by the slightly lower NRA used by the PET). However, I do note that it does appear the PET had access to better information (such as the subject's rent roll, if not other subject-specific data) that was not available to the PAO for this hearing. I also note that the PET's overall V&C loss is 12.68%, yet the PET shows just 7.1% vacancy in his pro-forma during a period of time of a good economy. Regardless, the PET concludes a value of$$20,327,705, and them makes a 15% COS deduction resulting in a desired just value of$17,279,000 (rounded). The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes improved sales in Collier, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pasco counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $57.07-$130.98/SF. The PET includes 11 anchored improved sales. Five were in Collier County, 2 in Hillsborough, 1 in Manatee, 1 in Pasco, 1 in Manatee, and 1 in Hillsborough (Valrico). Among these counties & cities noted, the 5 in Collier carry the 2019-00146 Page 4 of 7 most significance with the top three of those showing $/SF indicators (after 15% COS) of$144.37, $120.53, and $130.98. The subject's assessment is $172/SF. PET's Sale #4 (Sears) was not an arm's length sale & it was subsequently torn down. PET's Sale #5 closed in 2014; thus, it is outdated for meaningful comparison. The PET concludes $94.24/SF X 124,973 SF = $11,777,875 for the Sales Comparison Approach. That figure is almost $5M less than the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. RULING: As correctly noted by the PET at the hearing, the Income presentations of the PAO & PET are not all that much different, yet it is apparent that the PET did have access to some better data that allowed his presentation to be given slightly greater weight with respect to all inputs except V&C (vacancy & collection loss). While I understand the logic for sometimes applying different V&C figures to different rental group categories, the PET's own pro-forma notes the overall vacancy on the assessment date as 7.1% (i.e. 92.9% occupancy). This is respectable. The PAO uses a vacancy figure of 10%. It is stressed that while many [including the PAO] in the industry often say just `vacancy' for brevity, the actual deduction is for vacancy AND collection losses. Given the PET provides the subject's rent roll, and given the effective date is during a period of general national/state/regional prosperity, I give greater weight to the PAO's 10% V&C figure, yet apply it to the PET's entire Income Approach without changing any other figures used by the PET. In other words, it appears the PET's Income Approach presentation is reasonably well supported in most respects, with the exception of V&C. Thus, the 10% vacancy is applied to all rental revenue categories resulting in the same PGI of$2,770,440, V&C deduction of$277,044, and EGI of$2,493,397. Using the same expenses at $6.20/SF the resulting NOI is $1,718,564, divided by the PET's same loaded OAR of 8.089% results in a value indictor of$21,245,692, less 15% COS = $18.06M (rounded) for the whole property. While the PAO's Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches still result in higher total just value numbers, there is far more agreement between the PAO & PET with respect to their Income Approaches. Thus, I give greatest weight to the PET's Income Approach, as revised above using the PAO's more reasonable V&C allowance. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. There is credible evidence in the record (particularly with regard to the PET's evidence) pointing to a more reasonable assessment. This hearing consisted of 3 combined petitions (TP-146, 147, & 148). Therefore, it is necessary to equitably allocate the granted reduction of$3,975,334 among the parcels based upon their pro-rata share of the total 2019 just value being contested. The sum of the 3 parcels equals the $18,060,000 total revised assessment. Relief is therefore granted equitably to each petition (folio). It is recommended the PAO's assessment be lowered in accordance with the attached exhibit. It is also worthy to note that this combined ruling results in a combined increase of $1,646,958 (i.e. 10%) from the 2018 combined assessments of these 3 folios; however, it is far less than the $5,622,292 (i.e. 34.3%) increase originally proposed by the PAO coming into this hearing. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00146: 2019-00146 Page 5 of 7 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. 2019-00146 Page 6 of 7 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S RULING & REDUCTIONS FOR TP-146, 147, AND 148 2019 % of total 2019 Lowered 2019 Just Value 2019 Reduction Just Value Folio Petition # Contested Just Value Granted Per this Ruling 63518000526 TP-146 $12,792,799 58.06% $2,307,914 $10,484,885 63518000571 TP-147 $4,377,304 19.86% $789,697 $3,587,607 63518000623 TP-148 $4,865,231 22.08% $877,723 $3,987,508 all 3 TP's $22,035,334 100.00% <<Totals>> $3,975,334 $18,060,000 2019-00146 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00147 Parcel ID 63518000571 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 2464 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record E taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 71 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 4,377,304.00 4,377,304.00 3,587,607.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,512,765.00 3,512,765.00 3,512,765.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,512,765.00 3,512,765.00 3,512,765.00 *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) Z1 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00147 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00147: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PETITIONS HEARD TOGETHER: TP-146, 147, 148 are being heard together, as they are all 3 components of the same operating entity and under the same ownership. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as "Naples Walk" shopping center built in 1999, 2000 & 2006. The subject's address is 2460-2500 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 127,533 SF situated upon a site of 704,418 SF (i.e. 16.17 net acres). [Note: The 6.75-acre drainage lake is not included in that site area figure.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has not been a recent sale of the subject since 2007. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$22,035,334 or $173/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF X the net sire area of 704,418 SF = $14,088,360 plus $2,194,547 of impact fees for a total of$16,413,042 (which is 74.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 2 actual land sales). Land Sales#10 (not very far from the subject) closed for $17.18/SF in early 2016, and #11 (on Tamiami Trail) closed for $26.49/SF in mid-2014. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 9 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of$20/SF appears reasonable for the subject's good location at the SE quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road. Land Residuals #1 & #9 are the closest properties and have indicators of$31.01/SF & $25.24/SF, respective to lend support, yet less weight is given to residual indicators (since they are not true land sales). There appears to be missing pages from the full Marshall valuation, as only the summary report is provided, and it is less detailed for the multiple buildings constructed at different points in time. Only 2 summary pages are shown, which makes it a little more difficult to follow through all inputs and items in the PAO's Cost Approach. It appears the PAO applies 22.9% weighted average physical depreciation to buildings with an 2019-00147 Page 2 of 7 actual (and effective) age the PAO estimates at 13,19, and 20 years. It would seem a greater depreciation factor closer to 35% would be warranted, assuming a 50-year life. This might lower the PAO's Cost approach indicator by about $1.4M to a figure closer to $25.636M, yet that would still be generally supportive of the PAO's assessment with an assessment ratio of 86% via that approach. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $9,245,762 & site improvements/paving at $1,428,920, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $26,958,000 to support the subject's assessment, yet again, a figure closer to $25.636M would appear more warranted with a little more physical depreciation applied, given the PAO's effective age estimates [before any COS is applied]. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #1 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject and its price/SF indicator upward). Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). In conclusion, Sale #3 ($271.15/SF), #6 ($247.58/SF), and #7 ($231.32/SF) are given greater weight, since they are recent grocery-anchored sales in Collier County. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 127,533 SF = $25,507,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach, which appears reasonable [before any COS is applied]. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects $15/SF gross for the anchor (Publix) space of 51,295 SF, $25/SF gross for 46,530 SF for the main center's local space, & $23.25/SF for 29,708 SF for the 2-story mixed office/retail space, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [6.911% + 1.089%] to NOI of $1,652,733 for a value indication of$20,659,000, or $162/SF [before any COS is applied]. It is noted the PAO's Income figure is less than the contested just value of $22,035,434. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly with the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 120 pages of evidence (in 2 submittals to Axia) and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, January 2019 rent roll, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $17,279,000 (as stated on his cover page of evidence), which happens to be slightly greater than the PAO's land value estimate + impact fees that total $16,413,042. The PET also notes the subject's 2019 assessment increased by 34.3% from 2018. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon 3 different rental 2019-00147 Page 3 of 7 group categories [described below], 5% vacancy for the anchor, & 10% vacancy for sub- anchor outparcel (7,100 SF), 15% vacancy for the local space, $6.20/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 8.089% (7.00% +1.089%). The PET concludes a value of$17,279,000 rounded (after 15% COS deduction). The PET's anchor rent was $10.60/SF gross for the 51,420 Publix space, given the rent roll shows Publix paying $10.59/SF gross, yet it is noted that rent dates back to a lease originally starting 8/5/1999. The PET projects $27.50/SF gross for the 'Row by Captain' space of 7,100 SF. The `local' spaces were priced at $30.55/SF gross for 66,453 SF. The PET had a separate exhibit to support new local space leases in the center with an average of$30.55/SF gross. A January 2019 rent roll was provided in evidence. The PET provides an exhibit for various major retail anchors (mostly grocery store chains) in various counties (3 from Collier, Miami-Dade, Hillsboro, Sarasota, Charlotte, Broward, & Palm Beach counties). The high on that list is $10.15/SF, while the mean is $7.69/SF with most leases originating in the 2015 to the early 2019-time frame in those various counties. The PET provides another 1-page exhibit for "Anchor Space Contract Rents", which is a long list of[mostly grocery store] spaces with an average gross rent of$8.68/SF & average size of 45,348 SF. There were some rents in the lower-to-mid teens (gross) per SF, with the highest in that survey of $14.21/SF for a Michael's store in Hillsborough County. The PET provides another roster/survey of `sub-anchor' contract rents with a mean of$13.23/SF. The PET includes various rents from numerous non-Collier (and generally inferior) areas, such as Inverness, Crystal River, Destin, etc. that I do not consider relevant to this hearing. The PET does provide a localized REIS report with a map and various rental sheets. The PET provides various other surveys, etc. related to cap rates. However, at this hearing, the PAO & PET are in basic agreement regarding cap rates, given the PET uses a loaded rate of 8.089%, while the PAO uses a loaded rate of 8.0%. I do note a slight difference in rentable area. The PAO bases his Income Approach on 127,535 SF, while the PET has 124,973 SF, resulting in a difference of 2,562 SF. This difference is not particularly that great and is somewhat lost in the reconciliation and rounding process of this ruling. The PET argues that the PET & PAO Income Approach presentations are actually very close in their bottom-line numbers (before & after COS consideration). This does appear to be true, given the majority of the difference can be noted by the fact that the PAO's NOI is $8,425 greater than the PET's NOI. For a property of this size, that is a very small difference (and perhaps explained by the slightly lower NRA used by the PET). However, I do note that it does appear the PET had access to better information (such as the subject's rent roll, if not other subject-specific data) that was not available to the PAO for this hearing. I also note that the PET's overall V&C loss is 12.68%, yet the PET shows just 7.1% vacancy in his pro-forma during a period of time of a good economy. Regardless, the PET concludes a value of$$20,327,705, and them makes a 15% COS deduction resulting in a desired just value of$17,279,000 (rounded). The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes improved sales in Collier, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pasco counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $57.07-$130.98/SF. The PET includes 11 anchored improved sales. Five were in Collier County, 2 in Hillsborough, 1 in Manatee, 1 in Pasco, 1 in Manatee, and 1 in Hillsborough (Valrico). Among these counties & cities noted, the 5 in Collier carry the 2019-00147 Page 4 of 7 most significance with the top three of those showing $/SF indicators (after 15% COS) of$144.37, $120.53, and $130.98. The subject's assessment is $172/SF. PET's Sale #4 (Sears) was not an arm's length sale & it was subsequently torn down. PET's Sale #5 closed in 2014; thus, it is outdated for meaningful comparison. The PET concludes $94.24/SF X 124,973 SF = $11,777,875 for the Sales Comparison Approach. That figure is almost $5M less than the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. RULING: As correctly noted by the PET at the hearing, the Income presentations of the PAO & PET are not all that much different, yet it is apparent that the PET did have access to some better data that allowed his presentation to be given slightly greater weight with respect to all inputs except V&C (vacancy & collection loss). While I understand the logic for sometimes applying different V&C figures to different rental group categories, the PET's own pro-forma notes the overall vacancy on the assessment date as 7.1% (i.e. 92.9% occupancy). This is respectable. The PAO uses a vacancy figure of 10%. It is stressed that while many [including the PAO] in the industry often say just `vacancy' for brevity, the actual deduction is for vacancy AND collection losses. Given the PET provides the subject's rent roll, and given the effective date is during a period of general national/state/regional prosperity, I give greater weight to the PAO's 10% V&C figure, yet apply it to the PET's entire Income Approach without changing any other figures used by the PET. In other words, it appears the PET's Income Approach presentation is reasonably well supported in most respects, with the exception of V&C. Thus, the 10% vacancy is applied to all rental revenue categories resulting in the same PGI of$2,770,440, V&C deduction of$277,044, and EGI of$2,493,397. Using the same expenses at $6.20/SF the resulting NOI is $1,718,564, divided by the PET's same loaded OAR of 8.089% results in a value indictor of$21,245,692, less 15% COS = $18.06M (rounded) for the whole property. While the PAO's Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches still result in higher total just value numbers, there is far more agreement between the PAO & PET with respect to their Income Approaches. Thus, I give greatest weight to the PET's Income Approach, as revised above using the PAO's more reasonable V&C allowance. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. There is credible evidence in the record (particularly with regard to the PET's evidence) pointing to a more reasonable assessment. This hearing consisted of 3 combined petitions (TP-146, 147, & 148). Therefore, it is necessary to equitably allocate the granted reduction of$3,975,334 among the parcels based upon their pro-rata share of the total 2019 just value being contested. The sum of the 3 parcels equals the $18,060,000 total revised assessment. Relief is therefore granted equitably to each petition (folio). It is recommended the PAO's assessment be lowered in accordance with the attached exhibit. It is also worthy to note that this combined ruling results in a combined increase of $1,646,958 (i.e. 10%) from the 2018 combined assessments of these 3 folios; however, it is far less than the $5,622,292 (i.e. 34.3%) increase originally proposed by the PAO coming into this hearing. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00147: 2019-00147 Page 5 of 7 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. 2019-00147 Page 6 of 7 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S RULING & REDUCTIONS FOR TP-146, 147, AND 148 2019 % of total 2019 Lowered 2019 Just Value 2019 Reduction Just Value Folio Petition # Contested Just Value Granted Per this Ruling 63518000526 TP-146 $12,792,799 58.06% $2,307,914 $10,484,885 63518000571 TP-147 $4,377,304 19.86% $789,697 $3,587,607 63518000623 TP-148 $4,865,231 22.08% $877,723 $3,987,508 all 3 TP's $22,035,334 100.00% «Totals>> $3,975,334 $18,060,000 2019-00147 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. IA These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00148 Parcel ID 63518000623 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 2500 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address 111 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition I21 Granted your petition ❑ 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 4,865,231.00 4,865,231.00 3,987,508.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,007,377.00 4,007,377.00 3,987,508.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,007,377.00 4,007,377.00 3,987,508.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00148 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00148: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PETITIONS HEARD TOGETHER: TP-146, 147, 148 are being heard together, as they are all 3 components of the same operating entity and under the same ownership. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as "Naples Walk" shopping center built in 1999, 2000 & 2006. The subject's address is 2460-2500 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 127,533 SF situated upon a site of 704,418 SF (i.e. 16.17 net acres). [Note: The 6.75-acre drainage lake is not included in that site area figure.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has not been a recent sale of the subject since 2007. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$22,035,334 or $173/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF X the net sire area of 704,418 SF = $14,088,360 plus $2,194,547 of impact fees for a total of$16,413,042 (which is 74.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 2 actual land sales). Land Sales#10 (not very far from the subject) closed for $17.18/SF in early 2016, and #11 (on Tamiami Trail) closed for $26.49/SF in mid-2014. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 9 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of$20/SF appears reasonable for the subject's good location at the SE quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road. Land Residuals #1 & #9 are the closest properties and have indicators of$31.01/SF & $25.24/SF, respective to lend support, yet less weight is given to residual indicators (since they are not true land sales). There appears to be missing pages from the full Marshall valuation, as only the summary report is provided, and it is less detailed for the multiple buildings constructed at different points in time. Only 2 summary pages are shown, which makes it a little more difficult to follow through all inputs and items in the PAO's Cost Approach. It appears the PAO applies 22.9% weighted average physical depreciation to buildings with an 2019-00148 Page 2 of 7 actual (and effective) age the PAO estimates at 13,19, and 20 years. It would seem a greater depreciation factor closer to 35% would be warranted, assuming a 50-year life. This might lower the PAO's Cost approach indicator by about $1.4M to a figure closer to $25.636M, yet that would still be generally supportive of the PAO's assessment with an assessment ratio of 86% via that approach. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $9,245,762 & site improvements/paving at $1,428,920, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $26,958,000 to support the subject's assessment, yet again, a figure closer to $25.636M would appear more warranted with a little more physical depreciation applied, given the PAO's effective age estimates [before any COS is applied]. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #1 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject and its price/SF indicator upward). Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). In conclusion, Sale #3 ($271.15/SF), #6 ($247.58/SF), and #7 ($231.32/SF) are given greater weight, since they are recent grocery-anchored sales in Collier County. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 127,533 SF = $25,507,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach, which appears reasonable [before any COS is applied]. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects $15/SF gross for the anchor (Publix) space of 51,295 SF, $25/SF gross for 46,530 SF for the main center's local space, & $23.25/SF for 29,708 SF for the 2-story mixed office/retail space, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [6.911% + 1.089%] to NOI of $1,652,733 for a value indication of$20,659,000, or $162/SF [before any COS is applied]. It is noted the PAO's Income figure is less than the contested just value of $22,035,434. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly with the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 120 pages of evidence (in 2 submittals to Axia) and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, January 2019 rent roll, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $17,279,000 (as stated on his cover page of evidence), which happens to be slightly greater than the PAO's land value estimate + impact fees that total $16,413,042. The PET also notes the subject's 2019 assessment increased by 34.3% from 2018. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon 3 different rental 2019-00148 Page 3 of 7 group categories [described below], 5% vacancy for the anchor, & 10% vacancy for sub- anchor outparcel (7,100 SF), 15% vacancy for the local space, $6.20/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 8.089% (7.00% +1.089%). The PET concludes a value of$17,279,000 rounded (after 15% COS deduction). The PET's anchor rent was $10.60/SF gross for the 51,420 Publix space, given the rent roll shows Publix paying $10.59/SF gross, yet it is noted that rent dates back to a lease originally starting 8/5/1999. The PET projects $27.50/SF gross for the 'Row by Captain' space of 7,100 SF. The `local' spaces were priced at $30.55/SF gross for 66,453 SF. The PET had a separate exhibit to support new local space leases in the center with an average of$30.55/SF gross. A January 2019 rent roll was provided in evidence. The PET provides an exhibit for various major retail anchors (mostly grocery store chains) in various counties (3 from Collier, Miami-Dade, Hillsboro, Sarasota, Charlotte, Broward, & Palm Beach counties). The high on that list is $10.15/SF, while the mean is $7.69/SF with most leases originating in the 2015 to the early 2019-time frame in those various counties. The PET provides another 1-page exhibit for "Anchor Space Contract Rents", which is a long list of [mostly grocery store] spaces with an average gross rent of$8.68/SF & average size of 45,348 SF. There were some rents in the lower-to-mid teens (gross) per SF, with the highest in that survey of $14.21/SF for a Michael's store in Hillsborough County. The PET provides another roster/survey of `sub-anchor' contract rents with a mean of$13.23/SF. The PET includes various rents from numerous non-Collier (and generally inferior) areas, such as Inverness, Crystal River, Destin, etc. that I do not consider relevant to this hearing. The PET does provide a localized REIS report with a map and various rental sheets. The PET provides various other surveys, etc. related to cap rates. However, at this hearing, the PAO & PET are in basic agreement regarding cap rates, given the PET uses a loaded rate of 8.089%, while the PAO uses a loaded rate of 8.0%. I do note a slight difference in rentable area. The PAO bases his Income Approach on 127,535 SF, while the PET has 124,973 SF, resulting in a difference of 2,562 SF. This difference is not particularly that great and is somewhat lost in the reconciliation and rounding process of this ruling. The PET argues that the PET & PAO Income Approach presentations are actually very close in their bottom-line numbers (before & after COS consideration). This does appear to be true, given the majority of the difference can be noted by the fact that the PAO's NOI is $8,425 greater than the PET's NOI. For a property of this size, that is a very small difference (and perhaps explained by the slightly lower NRA used by the PET). However, I do note that it does appear the PET had access to better information (such as the subject's rent roll, if not other subject-specific data) that was not available to the PAO for this hearing. I also note that the PET's overall V&C loss is 12.68%, yet the PET shows just 7.1% vacancy in his pro-forma during a period of time of a good economy. Regardless, the PET concludes a value of$$20,327,705, and them makes a 15% COS deduction resulting in a desired just value of$17,279,000 (rounded). The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes improved sales in Collier, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pasco counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $57.07-$130.98/SF. The PET includes 11 anchored improved sales. Five were in Collier County, 2 in Hillsborough, 1 in Manatee, 1 in Pasco, 1 in Manatee, and 1 in Hillsborough (Valrico). Among these counties & cities noted, the 5 in Collier carry the 2019-00148 Page 4 of 7 most significance with the top three of those showing $/SF indicators (after 15% COS) of$144.37, $120.53, and $130.98. The subject's assessment is $172/SF. PET's Sale #4 (Sears) was not an arm's length sale & it was subsequently torn down. PET's Sale #5 closed in 2014; thus, it is outdated for meaningful comparison. The PET concludes $94.24/SF X 124,973 SF = $11,777,875 for the Sales Comparison Approach. That figure is almost $5M less than the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. RULING: As correctly noted by the PET at the hearing, the Income presentations of the PAO & PET are not all that much different, yet it is apparent that the PET did have access to some better data that allowed his presentation to be given slightly greater weight with respect to all inputs except V&C (vacancy & collection loss). While I understand the logic for sometimes applying different V&C figures to different rental group categories, the PET's own pro-forma notes the overall vacancy on the assessment date as 7.1% (i.e. 92.9% occupancy). This is respectable. The PAO uses a vacancy figure of 10%. It is stressed that while many [including the PAO] in the industry often say just `vacancy' for brevity, the actual deduction is for vacancy AND collection losses. Given the PET provides the subject's rent roll, and given the effective date is during a period of general national/state/regional prosperity, I give greater weight to the PAO's 10% V&C figure, yet apply it to the PET's entire Income Approach without changing any other figures used by the PET. In other words, it appears the PET's Income Approach presentation is reasonably well supported in most respects, with the exception of V&C. Thus, the 10% vacancy is applied to all rental revenue categories resulting in the same PGI of$2,770,440, V&C deduction of$277,044, and EGI of$2,493,397. Using the same expenses at $6.20/SF the resulting NOI is $1,718,564, divided by the PET's same loaded OAR of 8.089% results in a value indictor of$21,245,692, less 15% COS = $18.06M (rounded) for the whole property. While the PAO's Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches still result in higher total just value numbers, there is far more agreement between the PAO & PET with respect to their Income Approaches. Thus, I give greatest weight to the PET's Income Approach, as revised above using the PAO's more reasonable V&C allowance. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. There is credible evidence in the record (particularly with regard to the PET's evidence) pointing to a more reasonable assessment. This hearing consisted of 3 combined petitions (TP-146, 147, & 148). Therefore, it is necessary to equitably allocate the granted reduction of$3,975,334 among the parcels based upon their pro-rata share of the total 2019 just value being contested. The sum of the 3 parcels equals the $18,060,000 total revised assessment. Relief is therefore granted equitably to each petition (folio). It is recommended the PAO's assessment be lowered in accordance with the attached exhibit. It is also worthy to note that this combined ruling results in a combined increase of $1,646,958 (i.e. 10%) from the 2018 combined assessments of these 3 folios; however, it is far less than the $5,622,292 (i.e. 34.3%) increase originally proposed by the PAO coming into this hearing. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00148: 2019-00148 Page 5 of 7 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. 2019-00148 Page 6 of 7 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S RULING & REDUCTIONS FOR TP-146, 147, AND 148 2019 % of total 2019 Lowered 2019 Just Value 2019 Reduction Just Value Folio Petition # Contested Just Value Granted Per this Ruling 63518000526 TP-146 $12,792,799 58.06% $2,307,914 $10,484,885 63518000571 TP-147 $4,377,304 19.86% $789,697 $3,587,607 63518000623 TP-148 $4,865,231 22.08% $877,723 $3,987,508 all 3 TP's $22,035,334 100.00% <<Totals>> $3,975,334 $18,060,000 2019-00148 Pagc 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00150 Parcel ID 12730040001 Petitioner name TIM HART Property CItaxpayer of record NAPLES, 9TH STN The petitioner is: � taxpayer's agent address NAPFL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 27,637,708.00 27,637,708.00 24,801,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 22,548,318.00 22,548,318.00 22,548,318.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 22,548,318.00 22,548,318.00 22,548,318.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00150 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00150: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Publix-anchored power center known as "Naples Plaza", built in 1967, 1969 & 1978. Other anchors include Marshall's, the PGA store, and Office Depot. The subject's address is 1901 9th Street, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area (per the PAO) is 203,171 SF situated upon a site of 724,860 SF (i.e. 16.64 acres). The Chevron gas station and Chase bank outparcels are not a part of this hearing. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in July 1999 for $20M. JUST VALUE CONTESTED & EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$27,637,708, which equates to $136.03/SF of adjusted building area, or $38.03/SF of the total land area. Both parties submitted evidence into the record prior to this hearing. Unless stated otherwise in this ruling, the evidence is considered material, relevant, and credible. Evidence (if any) submitted at the hearing will be identified. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$27,637,708 or $136.03/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, and impact fee calculations. In the PAO's Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $21,745,800 plus $3,054,958 of impact fees for a total of$24,800,758 (which is 89.7% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 2 actual land sales). The two actual land sales (#10 & #11) are in inferior locations. They closed for $17.18/SF in early 2016, and $26.49/SF in mid-2014, respectively. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 9 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of $30/SF appears reasonable for the subject's good frontage-to-depth ratio along 9th Street North (i.e. Tamiami Trail). Land Residual #3 is the closest property, just north fo the subject along the North Trail and it has an indicator of$39.32/SF to lend support, yet it is not a true land sale. The subject is also located at the prominent intersection of 9th Street & Golden Gate Parkway. There appears to be missing pages from the full Marshall 2019-00150 Page 2 of 6 valuation. Only 2 summary pages are shown, which makes it a little more difficult to follow through all inputs and items in the PAO's Cost Approach. The PAO does provided limited back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations (in the back of their evidence). The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $12,474,784 & site improvements/paving at $1,311,622, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$38,587,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #1 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject.) Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). Sale #3 is given weight, since it is the closest (and recent) sale to the subject and also located along the North Trail. Sales #6 ($247.58/SF) and #7 ($231.32/SF) are also notable Publix-anchored sales that are recent & meaningful for comparison. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 203,171 SF = $40,634,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The bulk of evidence appears to be generally supportive of the PAO's $200/SF figure, relative to its assessment at $136.03/SF. The lowest sale of the 9 provided is #5 at $110.99/SF anchored by a Publix, yet it is not on a busy roadway with any significant frontage not far from the I-75/Immokalee Road interchange. The subject has much better visibility and frontage. In the PAO's Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $15/SF gross for the anchor (Publix) space of 60,313 SF, $25/SF gross for 139,404 SF, & $35/SF for 3,454 SF for the bank space, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% (i.e. 6.974% + 1.026%) to the NOI of$2,841,732 for a value indication of$35,522,000, or $175/SF. It is noted that the PAO considers a rentable area of 203,171 SF, while the PET uses 201,795 SF. The 1,376 SF difference is not particularly significant to this ruling, but it is noted. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. In fact, the PAO's land value + impact fees = 89.7% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 106 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $21,403,000, which happens to be less than the PAO's land value estimate + impact fees that total $24,800.758. The PET also notes the subject's 2019 assessment increased by 34.8% from 2018. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon 3 different rental 2019-00150 Page 3 of 6 group categories [described below], 5% vacancy for the anchor/junior anchor groups, & 10% vacancy for local tenants, $5.20/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 8.026% (7.00% +1.026%). The PET concludes a value of$21,403,000 (after 15% COS deduction). The PET's anchor rent was $9/SF gross for the 55,180 Publix space, and $11/SF gross for the Marshall's & PGA store spaces of 37,669 SF & 40,209 SF, respectively. The `sub-anchor' spaces were priced at $15/SF gross for 13,610 SF and 19,577 SF. The remaining local space of$35,550 SF was priced at $41/SF and given a higher vacany rate of 10%, while all larger tenant categories were at 5% vacancy. The PET had a separate exhibit to support local space leases in the center with an average of $41.01/SF gross, even though no actual rent roll was provided in evidence. The PET had a 1-page roster of`outparcel banks' contract rents with a mean rent of$34.71/SF. Those rents came from various parts of Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties. A rent from Orange, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties were also part of that bank outparcel list to help support the PET's $41/SF outparcel bank rent. The PET provides another exhibit for various major retail anchors (mostly grocery store chains) in various counties (3 from Collier, Miami-Dade, Hillsboro, Sarasota, Charlotte, Broward, & Palm Beach counties). The high on that list is $10.15/SF, while the mean is $7.69/SF with most leases originating in the 2015 to the early 2019 time frame in those various counties. The PET provides another 1-page exhibit for "Anchor Space Contract Rents", which is a long list of[mostly grocery store] spaces with an average gross rent of$8.68/SF & average size of 45,348 SF. There were some rents in the lower-to-mid teens (gross) per SF, with the highest in that survey of$14.21/SF for a Michael's store in Hillsborough County. The PET provides another roster/survey of `sub-anchor' contract rents with a mean of $13.23/SF. The PET includes various rents from numerous non-Collier (and generally inferior) areas, such as Inverness, Crystal River, Destin, etc. that I do not consider relevant to this hearing. The PET does provide a localized REIS report with a map and various rental sheets. The PET provides various other surveys, etc. related to cap rates. However, at this hearing, the PAO & PET are in basic agreement regarding cap rates, given the PET uses a loaded rate of 8.026%, while the PAO uses a loaded rate of 8.0%. There is minor (but some) difference in expenses, given the PET uses 34.2% of EGI, while the PAO uses 30.0% of EGI. The majority of difference between the respective Income Approaches has to do with the projection of anchor & sub-anchor rents. The PET did not provide any current rent roll or historical income/expense data to help further support any inputs, yet it is acknowledged this is a 'fee simple' analysis (and assessment). The PET does provide much better support for anchor rents than the PAO. The PET argues the PAO is missing (or mis-classifying) about 100,000 SF of anchor space by calling it local space when in fact (as the PET's Income Approach shows in category breakdowns) the subject is really more of a `power center' consisting mainly of reasonably large occupants. The PAO groups 139,404 SF into the local tenant category. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 11 anchored improved sales. Five were in Collier County, 2 in Hillsborough, 1 in Manatee, 1 in Pasco, 1 in Manatee, and 1 in Hillsborough (Valrico). Among these counties & cities noted, the 5 in Collier carry the most significance with the top three of those showing $/SF indicators (after 15% COS) of$144.37, $120.53, and $130.98. The subject's assessment 2019-00150 Page 4 of 6 is $136/SF. PET's Sale #4 (Sears) was not an arm's length sale & it was subsequently torn down. PET's Sale #5 closed in 2014; thus, it is outdated for meaningful comparison. The PET concludes $89.23/SF X 201,795 SF = $18,006,227 for the Sales Comparison Approach. RULING: The PET seeks a value reduction to $21,403,000, which happens to be less than the PAO's reasonably well supported estimate of land value + impact fees totaling $24,800,758. In order to best justify H&BU [per FS 193.011 (2)], the land value should be known, and the impact fees 'run with the land' as an add-on significant component. Essentially, the PET is trying to argue for a just value as if the site improvements and the vertical building improvements do not contribute anything to the overall property value, while the land value and impact fees are actually the most basic building blocks of value & H&BU. The PET does not stipulate or quantify any inherent functional obsolescence associated with the improvements. The PET does not verbally indicate the relatively old improvements fail to contribute to the overall value [however, my further analysis and upcoming ruling may indicate that is the case]. It is noted that there was a substantial increase in the subject's just value of 34.8% from 2018 to 2019; thus, it is understandable for any owner experiencing a significant increase from the prior year to question the assessment. The PAO acknowledged significant increases to many retail properties in Collier County, given many assessments remained lower during 2018 as local owners were still in the recovery process from a hurricane in 2017. Regardless, each year's assessment (and VAB hearing) stands on its own merits and evidence submitted. The PAO's depreciation of 35.8% appears low, given the PAO estimates an effective age of 25 years on page 23 of his evidence. We are dealing with relatively old structures that date back to 1967, 1969, and 1978. Assuming a 50-year life and 25-year effective age [stated by the PAO], it would appear depreciation closer to 50% would be more appropriate. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach appears a little overstated by about $2.76M; however, that is not much of a change to the PAO's original Cost Approach figure of $38.6M estimate. The PAO does do a sufficiently good job of supporting the land value + impact fees for a total of$24,800,758. I consider that the 'base line' of the subject's value, which is a significant aspect of this ruling. Upon further review of the PAO's anchor rental data, there is strong merit to PEI's argument that the PAO incorrectly classified about 100,000 SF of anchor space as local space. This results in a comparative difference of$989,293 in EGI , which is VERY significant. There is not a tremendous amount of difference in the rest of the remaining Income Approach inputs. However, it is sufficient to say the resulting value estimate via the Income Approach more closely mirrors the PET's presentation, which comes close to the $21.4M range. After properly considering H&BU aspects and the baseline of value, I give greatest weight to the PAO's land value + impact fees of$24,801,000 (rounded). It would appear from the data that most (if not all) the income generated by the property is 'to the land'. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. There is sufficient evidence in the record to establish support for an alternate just value. The recommended just value is lowered to 2019-00150 Page 5 of 6 $24,801,000 (rounded). This results in an increase over the 2018 just value of $4,302,529, or still a significant 21.0% increase. However, it is not the 34.8% increase had there been no relief granted. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00150: 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. 2019-00150 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00151 Parcel ID 20760400001 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 41119TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition I Granted your petition ❑ 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 36,593,102.00 36,593,102.00 31,389,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 26,678,501.00 26,678,501.00 26,678,501.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 26,678,501.00 26,678,501.00 26,678,501.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/29/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00151 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00151: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a retail `power center' built in 1973 & 2018. The subject's address is 4111 9th Street North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 250,608 SF situated upon a site of 950,762 SF (i.e. 21.83 acres). Notable tenants in the subject's center include Saks' 5th Ave (Off 5th), Big Lots, Home Goods, Burlington Coat Factory, Goodwill, and the Fresh Market. The subject has had many upgrades/renovations, even though it was originally built in 1973. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$36,593,102 or $146/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF X 950,762 SF = $23,769,050 plus $3,768,215 of impact fees for a total of$27,537,265(which is 75.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators; however, the first 9 are `residuals' while only #10 ($17.18/SF in 2016) 2019-00151 Page 2 of 6 and #11 (a car dealership site in 2014 for $26.49/SF) are actual land sales. The PAO likes [residual] #3 ($39.32/SF), because it is very close to the subject. The PAO does provided back-up summary cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $22,162,502 & site improvements/paving at $1,594,606, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $51,294,000 to support the subject's assessment. Given the PAO estimates an effective age of 15 years, it would appear the PAO's depreciation of 13.2% is light, assuming a normal life of 50 years would approximate 30% depreciation. However, even if 30% depreciation were applied, a Cost Approach indictor of$47M would result, which is still substantially more than the contested just value of$36,593,102. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF). Sale #1 lacks an anchor, but it is the adjacent phase to an existing Publix-anchored center [heard under separate petition TP-233]. Sales #1 & #2 are given far less weight, because of the lack of an anchor (which distorts its rents relative to the subject and its price/SF indicator upward). Sale #3 (Publix-anchored) is the 2018 resale ($271.15) of Sale #4 ($218.90/SF in 2014). In conclusion, Sale #3 ($271.15/SF), #6 ($247.58/SF), and #7 ($231.32/SF) are given greater weight by me, since they are recent anchored sales in Collier County. Sale #5 ($110.99/SF) had some vacancy issues when it sold). Sale #8 ($176.39/SF) is the 2014 prior sale indicator of Sale #7 in December 2017 for $176.39/ SF. It would have been preferred to have more sales of other power centers with a high ratio of anchor (and sub-anchor) space, as compared to conventional Publix-anchored centers with a larger ratio of local space than exists at the subject. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 250,608 SF = $50,122,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Because the subject's location is in the North Trail area (generally superior to most of the sales), the PAO's $200/SF estimate appears within reason, or perhaps slightly aggressive. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $18/SF gross for the vast majority of the center's space (i.e. 242,500 SF). Only 8,108 SF was priced differently at $40/SF gross for the "Yard House". Vacancy/collection loss was projected at 10.0% [even though the subject is at 95.7% occupancy], expenses at 30.0%, and the PAO applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [6.74% + 1.026%] to NOI of$2,954,272 for a value indication of $36,928,000, or $147/SF, without any COS discount considered. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 113 pages of the subject's evidence [via 2 submittals in Axia] and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to 2019-00151 Page 3 of 6 $26,661,000. The PET's evidence indicates the subject's just value increased by $9,669,278 (i.e. 35.9%) from 2018 to 2019. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon the largest anchor (Burlington) @ $9/SF gross, 3 slightly smaller anchors @ $12/SF gross, sub-anchors at $16 & $25/SF gross, and local space of 35,652 @ 440.75/SF gross. The PET assigns different vacancy & collection loss rates (i.e. 5% anchor, 10% sub-anchor and 15% for local tenants). The resulting average V&C loss from the PGI (potential gross income) is 9.76%; whereas, the PET reports the subject's actual vacancy as 4.3% on the assessment date. The PET projects $5.00/SF expenses and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.026% (7.0% + 1.026%) to the NOI of$2,552,183. The PET concludes a preliminary value of $31,797,670, less lease-up costs of$432,205 = $31,365,205, less 15% COS = $26,661,000 (rounded). If the subject is already at 95.7% occupancy (as stated by the PET at the top of his pro-forma analysis) & has a projected V&C loss of 9.8%, the $432,205 discount for lease-up is inconsistent & unwarranted. Thus, the lease-up deduction is disregarded by me. The PET projects expenses @ $5/SF (the PAO used $5.05/SF), then applies a loaded cap rate of 8.026% (the PAO used 8.00%) to the NOI of $2,552,183, resulting in a preliminary number of$31,797,670 before any COS consideration). The PET justifies the `local' space rent projection of$40.75/SF gross via an exhibit [with dates the leases are written] showing the average gross rent of the 5 subject leases most recently written at $40.58/SF gross. Next, the PET justifies the `sub- anchor' space rent projection of$16/SF gross via an exhibit showing the average gross rent of 3 subject `sub-anchor' leases at $15.95/SF gross; however, this time the PET fails to provide the dates the leases were written. The current amounts paid on older leases may no longer reflect current market terms, but at least they establish the existing rates as some form of benchmark. It is interesting (unusual) the PET has good knowledge of so many subject lease terms, yet the PET fails to provide a subject rent roll (or historical profit & loss statements) in evidence. The PET provides another exhibit for anchor contract gross rents in various Collier and other major (or similar) market areas in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, and Sarasota counties. A Charlotte County lease is also provided for a Wal Mart. High ($10.15/SF), mean, and low indicators to show support for the PET's anchor rent projection of$9/SF for the theater, and $12/SF for the 93,080 SF LA Fitness. A second (similar) anchor space contract rent chart is provided, but it is not clear of the sown gross rental rates for each lease reflect the 2019 rents being paid for each respective lease. A second (similar) `sub-anchor' chart is also provided with the same possible problem, in that the gross rents may not necessarily be escalated to 2019 levels for each respective lease. The PET does provide a REIS rental report with 10 rent comps that indicate a current mean vacancy rate of 4.7% [supportive of the subject's actual vacancy]. Overall, the PET does a reasonably good job of rental data searches for the different space size categories at the subject. However, the PET's actual use and analysis of that data is more suspect when applied to the subject's projections. I do note a slight difference in rentable area, given the PET uses 248,148 SF, while the PAO bases his Income Approach on 250,608 SF. The resulting in difference of 1,460 SF. This difference is relatively insignificant and somewhat lost in the reconciliation and 2019-00151 Page 4 of 6 rounding process of this ruling. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes a roster of 11 improved sales in Collier (5 sales), Hillsborough (3 sales), Manatee (1 sale), and Pasco (1 sale) counties. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $57.07-$130.98/SF. The PET concludes $94.24/SF X 249,148 SF = $23,480,544 for the Sales Comparison Approach. I disregard the PET's Sale #3 (Shoppes at Audubon) because it closed in mid-2019, which is well after the assessment date. Plus, that property was reported to have vacancy issues at the time of sale. I will accept the 2 other sales in Hillsboro County that closed during the first 2 months of 2019, as they most likely were under contract on the assessment date. The PET makes an error in the subject's land area when computing the land-to-building ratio (LTB or 'LB') in that exhibit. The correct land area for the subject is 950,762, while the LTB should be 3.79, not 2.95. PET's Sale #1 (Hobby Lobby) is a big box sale, not a multi-tenant shopping center like the subject. PET's Sale #2 (the Strand) was also the PAO's Sale #5, but it is a center that is tucked back in a neighborhood & lacks busy road frontage as the subject enjoys. PET's Sale #4 (Sears at Coastland Mall) was not an arm's length sale & the Sears store was subsequently demolished. The Goodwill (Sale #6) in Tampa apparently is a 'big box' sale to a charity of 212,000 SF, not a multi-tenant shopping center like the subject. The PET concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value (after 15% COS deduction) of $23,480,544, as compared to the contested just value of$36,593,102. I give no weight to the PET's Sales Comparison approach, due to the multiple deficiencies noted that tend to inaccurately suppress the resulting value estimate. RULING: 1.Based upon the PET's cover page to his evidence, the PET seeks a value reduction to $26,661,000, which happens to be less than the PAO's land value estimate + impact fees that total $27,537,265. However, the PAO's land value may be aggressive from the data presented, given 7 of the 9 PAO land indicators were `residuals' with less reliability than true land sales. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach is definitely suspect for being too aggressive in its value conclusion. Also, its depreciation estimate appears to be low for the overall effective age estimate of 15 years. 2. Because the subject is a power center with many large spaces, it would have been preferred to have improved sales of a similar nature. I did not give the PET's Sales Comparison Approach any weight. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach was much better, but it also lacked `power center' sales that would better depict a more appropriate $/SF indicator for the building. Thus, I give greater attention to the Income Approach presentations presented, as discussed next. 3.The PET makes an overall good attempt at researching various inputs to their Income Approach; however, the PET's analysis and selection of certain inputs tended to skew the resulting value estimate downward. That being said, it still does appear the PAO's just value being contested is too aggressive. While I think the PAO's Income Approach projection of vacancy at 10% is excessive, it is offset by what appears to be a slight understatement of rents as projected for this power center. Given the PAO & PET basically agree on expenses and cap rates, it would appear the PAO's Income Approach estimate is reasonable & I also make an additional 15% COS deduction to the PAO's 2019-00151 Page 5 of 6 estimate of$36,928,000, resulting in my final ruling of$31,389,000. This results in a value increase of 16.6% from the 2018 assessment of$4,465,176; however, it is less than the 35.9% ($9,669,278) increase sought by the PAO's contested just value. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be lowered to $31,389,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00151: 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. 2019-00151 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R p8517 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002 F.A.C. `��I1:18 DA Collier County Eff.01/17 FThe actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00152 Parcel ID 00274160006 Petitioner name TIM HART Property petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record AIRPORT RDN The Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12,816,709.00 12,816,709.00 12,816,709.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,816,709.00 12,816,709.00 12,816,709.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,816,709.00 12,816,709.00 12,816,709.00 *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) 7J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/03/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00152 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00152: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 152 & 158 were being heard together, as they combine as the operating entity known as `Tamiami Ford'. It was built in 1989, 1990, & the parking garage/car wash/oil change was built in 2018 [with a permit amount of$7.476M]. The subject's address is 1471 Airport Road North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 61,646 SF situated upon a site of 337,099 SF (i.e. 7.74 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's combined assessment [2 petitions] of$13,118,629 or $213/ SF of enclosed building area (or $100.56/SF based upon all 130,457 SF, which includes the parking garage). As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail auto dealership sales data, the subject's building card, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20 X 337,099 SF = $6,741,980, plus $2,478,931 of impact fees for a total of$9,220,911 (which is 70.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators. The first two were `residual indicators from shopping center sites given less weight because they were not true land sales. However, #3-9 are all land sales. #7, 8, & 9 were all car dealership sites with $/SF indicators of$18.68, $22.84, & $26.49, 2019-00152 Page 2 of 5 respectively. The PAO's land value of$20/SF appears very well supported by those sales in close proximity. 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 $10,176,782 & site improvements/paving at $1,652,942, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$21,051,000 to support the subject's assessment. It is worth noting that the subject's recent (2017) building permit for the brand-new parking garage was $7,476,000. The PAO's well-supported land value + impact fees = $9,220,911. Those items combine for $16,696,911, which supports the PAO's assessment even without the added value of the 61,646 SF dealership building. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sale #1 happens to be a Harley Davidson dealership. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $292.10-$444.28/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sales #3 ($292.10/SF), #4 ($444.28/SF), and #7 ($410.20/SF) without the parking garage's square feet being considered. The PAO concludes $350/SF X 61,646 SF [without the garage] = $21,576,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. It is noted Sale #8 closed in mid-2019; thus, it is only considered for trending purposes at $399.82/SF, yet it does lend support. It appears consideration is given in the PAO's $/SF indicator of $350/SF [applied to the main dealership structures] to account for the fact that the subject also has a parking garage. Thus, the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross for the dealerships main 61,646 SF, $5/SF gross for the parking garage/oil change/car wash building's 68,811 SF, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 15.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% [6.3% +1.2% millage rate] to the NOI of$1,273.407 for a value indication of $16,979,000. Arguably, the estimation of market rent for car dealerships with parking garage is less precise, because many major auto dealerships are owned and not leased. 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 land value + impact fees + parking garage permit value total $16.7M, which is enough to support the assessment, even without considering the added value contribution of the 61,646 main dealership building improvements. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 124 pages [via 2 evidence packages] of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET also includes commercial land sales as a basis for arguing against the PAO's land portion of the assessment. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's permit history, subject's 2 Trim notices, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, Loopnet active listings, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, PwC net lease market data, comparable sales data, CoStar comparable sales summary sheets, comparable land sales grid/data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, & Forms DR-485V. The PET seeks a value reduction to $10,462,000 for the combined value of the petitions. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $8.00/SF applied to both the dealership building & the parking garage, 5.0% vacancy, $0.76/SF expenses, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.25% to the NOI of$892,326 to conclude a value of 2019-00152 Page 3 of 5 $12,307,943, less 15% COS = $10,462,000 (rounded). The PET does include a "Lease Comparables" exhibit of dealerships from different parts of Florida. Probably the most relevant is the Bonita Springs former Volvo dealership that also has back-up data that applies different rental rates (from $7-$24/SF) for different buildings in the dealership. It is noted canopy areas, detail buildings, and the car wash building are shown with an asking rate of$7/SF NNN, yet the rest of the (enclosed) building areas vary from $10- $24/SF NNN. The PET uses a low $8/SF NNN figure for all building areas, which tends to suppress the value indication. The rest of the PET's rent comps are generally in inferior cities/locations, but have rental rates ranging from $7.57 to $13.08/SF NN for their building areas (and none have parking garages). My review of the PET's rental comp data strongly suggests the PET underestimates the subject's NOI. The PAO's NOI is $2.92/SF greater than the PET's, and justifiably so. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 7 improved sales (mostly in in counties throughout Central and North Florida). The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $59.11-$99.40/SF. However, PET's two lowest sales #4 & 7 both closed well after the assessment date & are not given weight. After removing those two sales, the resulting average of the remaining 5 sales is $89.28/SF of building area, while the subject's contested just value is $100.56/SF (based upon all 130,457 SF). The biggest problem associated with both the PET's & PAO's Comparable Sales Approach presentations is that the subject has a parking garage and (it appears) none of the sales do. As a related topic, the FAR's are also different (or dramatically different). There has been a trend over recent years for dealerships to also have parking garages. The PET fails to adequately adjust or account for differences in building designs and FAR's (or land-to- building ratios). The PET concludes $83.12/SF X 130,457 SF = $10,843,313 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET includes a land sales analysis for the purpose of arguing against the PAO's land portion of the assessment. In a grid of 9 land sales, #1 and #5 are well past the assessment date; thus, are not timely for consideration. Three of the remaining 8 sales are located along the East Trail area. Sale #6 has a large FPL easement running through it that creates non-usable (or very limited use) space. Normally, when doing a land valuation, it is logical to go ahead & proceed with a full Cost Approach, yet the PET fails to do a Cost Approach. Therefore, if I take the PET's $7.30/SF land value X 337099 SF, a land value of$2,460,823 results. After plugging in that figure into the PAO's Cost Approach & accounting for impact fees and using the same depreciated building value components and site work, a figure of$16,769,378 results. The contested just value is 78.2% of that version of the Cost Approach; thus, the PET's own land value helps (if it were considered accurate) supports the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. RULING: 1.The subject's building permit for the new parking garage was $7,476,000. The PAO's well-supported land value + impact fees = $9,220,911. Those items combine for $16,696,911, which supports the PAO's assessment even without the added value of the 61,646 SF dealership building. 2.If plugging in the PET's land value of$7.30/SF and using the rest of the PAO's Cost 2019-00152 Page 4 of 5 Approach inputs, a figure of$16,769,378 results. The contested just value is 78.2% of that version of the Cost Approach; thus, the PET's own land value helps (if it were considered accurate) supports the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. 3.A more detailed look at the PET's rent comparables tends to show the PET's income projection is low. 4. There are distortions in analysis created by the subject's new parking garage, which is a trend exhibited by many new car dealerships being built. Parking garages do not appear to be present for virtually all the dealership market rental & sales data presented by both parties. However, parking garages are expensive to build and warrant consideration for this class of property. 5. The greater weight of evidence via all three approaches (especially the Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach tends to support the PAO's assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00152: 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. 2019-00152 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA c ilier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00153 Parcel ID 00274520002 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 4648 MERCANTILEAVE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,361,308.00 2,361,308.00 2,361,308.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,648,259.00 1,648,259.00 1,648,259.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,648,259.00 1,648,259.00 1,648,259.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00153 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00153: The Petitioner (PET) failed to attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance (to have evidence considered), yet did submit evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO also submitted evidence into the record prior to the hearing. However, since the PET failed to appear and failed to let the VAB staff know they would like to have evidence considered, the PAO's assessment was upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00153: 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. 2019-00153 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R 08517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. EI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00154 Parcel ID 68568300080 Petitioner name TIM HART Property PROGRESSAVE The petitioner is: taxa er of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presentedby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9d.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,667,055.00 1,038,692.00 1,038,692.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 977,901.00 977,901.00 977,901.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 977,901.00 977,901.00 977,901.00 *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) 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00154 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00154: PAO lowered the value just prior to the hearing to $1,038,692; thus, that is the value being upheld in this ruling. The Petitioner (PET) failed to attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance (to have evidence considered), yet did submit evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO also submitted evidence into the record prior to the hearing. However, since the PET failed to appear and failed to let the VAB staff know they would like to have evidence considered, the PAO's assessment was upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00154: 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. 2019-00154 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R x8517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00155 Parcel ID 00275240006 Petitioner name TIM HART Property petitioner is: 4227 DOMESTICAVE The ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,654,554.00 3,654,554.00 3,654,554.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,534,969.00 2,534,969.00 2,534,969.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,534,969.00 2,534,969.00 2,534,969.00 *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) ZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00155 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00155: The Petitioner (PET) failed to attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance (to have evidence considered), yet did submit evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO also submitted evidence into the record prior to the hearing. However, since the PET failed to appear and failed to let the VAB staff know they would like to have evidence considered, the PAO's assessment was upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00155: 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. 2019-00155 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RRo85? VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. j These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00156 Parcel ID 63000280003 Petitioner name TIM HART Property YDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES,DSFL 341 ❑ other, explain: FL 34105 Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12119.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,320,184.00 1,320,184.00 1,320,184.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,186,935.00 1,186,935.00 1,186,935.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,186,935.00 1,186,935.00 1,186,935.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/03/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00156 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00156: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an I-Hop Restaurant built in 1989. The subject's address is 6631 Dudley Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 4,232 SF, which is situated upon a site of 40,106 SF (i.e. 0.92 acres). The subject is located along the south side of Pine Ridge Road (but has no driveway cut to Pine Ridge Road). The subject is also just west of the I-75 interchange PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in March 30, 2016 for $3,150,000 as a leased fee sale. The contested just value of$1,320,184 is just 37.7% of that prior sale. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$1,320,184 or $312/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, PwC cap rate analysis, CoStar prior sales sheet for the subject, property record card, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $30/SF X 40,106 SF = $1,203,180, plus $228,121 of impact fees for a total of$1,431,301 (which is 108.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial vacant 2019-00156 Page 2 of 4 land sale indicators. Land Sales 1, 8, & 9 are in fairly close proximity to the subject with $/SF indicators of$21.67, $28.64 ('17 sale), and $25.51 ('16 sale), respectively. Land Sale #7 was a restaurant sale in early 2017 that sold for $55.54/SF on Naples Boulevard. Overall, the land value appears to be well supported. 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 $258,318 & site improvements/paving at $77,094, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$1,767,000 to support the subject's assessment of$1,320,184. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 12 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $311.95-$986.37/SF. Sales #2 is an IHOP in Bonita Springs that sold (leased fee given no weight) for $750.34/SF. Sale #4 is a Venice sale that sold leased fee (also given no weight) that sold for $519.77/SF. The PAO gives most weight to the Collier County fee simple sales #1 ($750.34/SF), #3 ($519.77/SF), and #12 ($535.98/SF) [closed in 2015]). The PAO indicates these 3 are all slightly superior in location to the subject. All but one of the remaining sales closed for more than $600/SF. The PAO concludes $500/SF X 4,232 SF = $2,116,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $35.00/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$119,607 for a value indication of$1,495,000, or $353/SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly since the land value + impact fees exceed the just value being contested. Land is valued 'as if vacant' and available to be put to its H&BU, thus, the land value forms the foundation for the subject's value, and impact fees 'run with the land' as an add-on benefit and enhancement to the land value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 50 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, subject's location map, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market rent data, CoStar cap rate data, mini warehouse market expense analysis, mini warehouse insurance market rate analysis, CBRE self-storage expense report, realtyrates.com investor survey, Comparable Sales Analysis, comparables summary sheet with photographs, comparable tax roll sheet, and Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $911,000. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $20.00/SF NNN, 5.0% vacancy, $1.90/SF expenses, and an unloaded cap rate of 6.75%. The PET concludes a value of$1,072,107, less 15% COS = $911,000 (rounded). The PET provides a grid of 9 restaurant [older] rents from leases dated from 2014 to 2016, but none of them were in Collier County. Those older (and non-Collier) rates ranged from $18.97 - $24.83/SF NNN. The PET goes on to show rental sheets for several Collier retail rents; however, they were all in multi-tenant centers. The subject is a freestanding restaurant not in a multi-tenant shopping center. Thus, the PET presents a combination of slightly older and non-Collier rents supplemented by non-freestanding restaurant rents. These factors detract from the credibility of the PET's. Income Approach. 2019-00156 Page 3 of 4 The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET presents 8 improved sales in Collier County; however, 5 of the 8 closed after the assessment date and 4 of them were an apparent bulk purchase of 4 Burger King restaurants [as part of a purchase of 19 BK's to the same buyer]. Therefore, I do not give any consideration to the PET's 2019 sales. The remaining (timely) 3 sales sold for $210/SF $212/SF and $249/SF. PET's $212/SF sale is Cracklin Jacks located in (inferior) Golden Gate. The PET's last sale is a 2-story building, which differs from the subject's design. The PET concludes $231.91/SF X 4,232 SF = $981,432 for the Sales Comparison Approach. RULING: As is often the case with freestanding restaurants along busy streets, the FAR (floor-to-area ratio) is relatively low at 10.6%. This means the underlying land value is more significant to buyers. The restaurant build-out is often far less significant, given most restaurants (particularly chains) have their own themes and often will gut many interior areas to redecorate. Thus, a focus on the land value and impact fees is warranted, at least to establish a baseline of value in accordance with H&BU. The PAO does a far better job at this, given the PAO does provide a full Cost Approach with 9 land sales. The PAO also quantifies the impact fees and other aspects of building and site contribution values that easily support the PAO's assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00156: 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. 2019-00156 Page 4 of 4 :. rd DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ZI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00157 Parcel ID 00235320005 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 6780 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary IZ1 Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ 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 13,080,397.00 13,080,397.00 13,080,397.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,842,048.00 10,842,048.00 10,842,048.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,842,048.00 10,842,048.00 10,842,048.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00157 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00157: The Petitioner (PET) failed to attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance (to have evidence considered), yet did submit evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO also submitted evidence into the record prior to the hearing. However, since the PET failed to appear and failed to let the VAB staff know they would like to have evidence considered, the PAO's assessment was upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00157: 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. 2019-00157 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R 08517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00158 Parcel ID 00274200005 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 1471 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34104 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/03/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00158 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00158: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 152 & 158 were being heard together, as they combine as the operating entity known as `Tamiami Ford'. It was built in 1989, 1990, & the parking garage/car wash/oil change was built in 2018 [with a permit amount of$7.476M]. The subject's address is 1471 Airport Road North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 61,646 SF situated upon a site of 337,099 SF (i.e. 7.74 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's combined assessment [2 petitions] of$13,118,629 or $213/ SF of enclosed building area (or $100.56/SF based upon all 130,457 SF, which includes the parking garage). As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail auto dealership sales data, the subject's building card, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20 X 337,099 SF = $6,741,980, plus $2,478,931 of impact fees for a total of$9,220,911 (which is 70.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators. The first two were `residual indicators from shopping center sites given less weight because they were not true land sales. However, #3-9 are all land sales. #7, 8, & 9 were all car dealership sites with $/SF indicators of$18.68, $22.84, & $26.49, 2019-00158 Page 2 of 5 respectively. The PAO's land value of$20/SF appears very well supported by those sales in close proximity. 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 $10,176,782 & site improvements/paving at $1,652,942, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$21,051,000 to support the subject's assessment. It is worth noting that the subject's recent (2017) building permit for the brand-new parking garage was $7,476,000. The PAO's well-supported land value + impact fees = $9,220,911. Those items combine for $16,696,911, which supports the PAO's assessment even without the added value of the 61,646 SF dealership building. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sale #1 happens to be a Harley Davidson dealership. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $292.10-$444.28/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sales #3 ($292.10/SF), #4 ($444.28/SF), and #7 ($410.20/SF) without the parking garage's square feet being considered. The PAO concludes $350/SF X 61,646 SF [without the garage] = $21,576,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. It is noted Sale #8 closed in mid-2019; thus, it is only considered for trending purposes at $399.82/SF, yet it does lend support. It appears consideration is given in the PAO's $/SF indicator of $350/SF [applied to the main dealership structures] to account for the fact that the subject also has a parking garage. Thus, the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross for the dealerships main 61,646 SF, $5/SF gross for the parking garage/oil change/car wash building's 68,811 SF, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 15.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% [6.3% +1.2% millage rate] to the NOI of$1,273.407 for a value indication of $16,979,000. Arguably, the estimation of market rent for car dealerships with parking garage is less precise, because many major auto dealerships are owned and not leased. 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 land value + impact fees + parking garage permit value total $16.7M, which is enough to support the assessment, even without considering the added value contribution of the 61,646 main dealership building improvements. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 124 pages [via 2 evidence packages] of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET also includes commercial land sales as a basis for arguing against the PAO's land portion of the assessment. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's permit history, subject's 2 Trim notices, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, Loopnet active listings, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, PwC net lease market data, comparable sales data, CoStar comparable sales summary sheets, comparable land sales grid/data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, & Forms DR-485V. The PET seeks a value reduction to $10,462,000 for the combined value of the petitions. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $8.00/SF applied to both the dealership building & the parking garage, 5.0% vacancy, $0.76/SF expenses, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.25% to the NOI of$892,326 to conclude a value of 2019-00158 Page 3 of 5 $12,307,943, less 15% COS = $10,462,000 (rounded). The PET does include a "Lease Comparables" exhibit of dealerships from different parts of Florida. Probably the most relevant is the Bonita Springs former Volvo dealership that also has back-up data that applies different rental rates (from $7-$24/SF) for different buildings in the dealership. It is noted canopy areas, detail buildings, and the car wash building are shown with an asking rate of$7/SF NNN, yet the rest of the (enclosed) building areas vary from $10- $24/SF NNN. The PET uses a low $8/SF NNN figure for all building areas, which tends to suppress the value indication. The rest of the PET's rent comps are generally in inferior cities/locations, but have rental rates ranging from $7.57 to $13.08/SF NN for their building areas (and none have parking garages). My review of the PET's rental comp data strongly suggests the PET underestimates the subject's NOI. The PAO's NOI is $2.92/SF greater than the PET's, and justifiably so. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 7 improved sales (mostly in in counties throughout Central and North Florida). The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $59.11-$99.40/SF. However, PET's two lowest sales #4 & 7 both closed well after the assessment date & are not given weight. After removing those two sales, the resulting average of the remaining 5 sales is $89.28/SF of building area, while the subject's contested just value is $100.56/SF (based upon all 130,457 SF). The biggest problem associated with both the PET's & PAO's Comparable Sales Approach presentations is that the subject has a parking garage and (it appears) none of the sales do. As a related topic, the FAR's are also different (or dramatically different). There has been a trend over recent years for dealerships to also have parking garages. The PET fails to adequately adjust or account for differences in building designs and FAR's (or land-to- building ratios). The PET concludes $83.12/SF X 130,457 SF = $10,843,313 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET includes a land sales analysis for the purpose of arguing against the PAO's land portion of the assessment. In a grid of 9 land sales, #1 and #5 are well past the assessment date; thus, are not timely for consideration. Three of the remaining 8 sales are located along the East Trail area. Sale #6 has a large FPL easement running through it that creates non-usable (or very limited use) space. Normally, when doing a land valuation, it is logical to go ahead & proceed with a full Cost Approach, yet the PET fails to do a Cost Approach. Therefore, if I take the PET's $7.30/SF land value X 337099 SF, a land value of$2,460,823 results. After plugging in that figure into the PAO's Cost Approach & accounting for impact fees and using the same depreciated building value components and site work, a figure of$16,769,378 results. The contested just value is 78.2% of that version of the Cost Approach; thus, the PET's own land value helps (if it were considered accurate) supports the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. RULING: 1.The subject's building permit for the new parking garage was $7,476,000. The PAO's well-supported land value + impact fees = $9,220,911. Those items combine for $16,696,911, which supports the PAO's assessment even without the added value of the 61,646 SF dealership building. 2.If plugging in the PET's land value of$7.30/SF and using the rest of the PAO's Cost 2019-00158 Page 4 of 5 Approach inputs, a figure of$16,769,378 results. The contested just value is 78.2% of that version of the Cost Approach; thus, the PET's own land value helps (if it were considered accurate) supports the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. 3.A more detailed look at the PET's rent comparables tends to show the PET's income projection is low. 4. There are distortions in analysis created by the subject's new parking garage, which is a trend exhibited by many new car dealerships being built. Parking garages do not appear to be present for virtually all the dealership market rental & sales data presented by both parties. However, parking garages are expensive to build and warrant consideration for this class of property. 5. The greater weight of evidence via all three approaches (especially the Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach tends to support the PAO's assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00158: 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. 2019-00158 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00168 Parcel ID 00075720001 Petitioner name CRAIG CARDELLA Property 1012 SUMMER GLEN BLVD The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record IZ1 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 Decision Summary [7 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,126,789.00 1,064,949.00 1,064,949.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,126,789.00 1,064,949.00 1,064,949.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,126,789.00 1,064,949.00 1,064,949.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 10/20/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/25/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ 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 2019-00168 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00168: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Craig Cardella, Property Tax Advisor. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,064,949. The value has changed from $1,126,789 since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as nine-one story, class D, apartment buildings containing 40-1-bedroom units and 6-2-bedroom units. The building contains 31,276-sf and the land size is 317,552-sf. There is a separate office building containing 2,388-sf. The buildings were built in 1993. The property has suffered damage from hurricane Irma. The property is located at 1012 Summer Glen Boulevard, Immokalee FL. The following information was taken from PET's evidence, page 7. The information is presented here by SM to clarify the type of property under review. The property is known as Summer Glen Apartments of Immokalee, Ltd, (the Partnership). The partnership was organized in 1992 for the purpose of constructing the subject. The subject is a low- income property financed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and is regulated by Rural Development as to rent charges and operating methods. The apartment community began operations in March 1993. The management of the Partnership and the ongoing management of Summer Glen Apartments was vested in the Partners. The Partnership has hired Dimension One Management, Inc., an affiliate of one of the partners, to provide day to day management for the property. Compensation for such services is as determined under the partnership and management agreement. The Partnership Agreement remains in effect until December 21, 2045. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 2019-00168 Page 2 of 9 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 56 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 buildings. 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 contains the deed with legal description, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales. Included is supporting income data for multi-family markets in Florida and the United States for multi-family capitalization rates, and local vacancy rates and rental data. PAO included comparable building sales from CoStar in Collier and Lee Counties; 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 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Immokalee and Collier County. The land sales occurred from June 2014 to August 2018; with one sale that occurred in May 2019, this 2019 sale is being used for value trending. The land sales range in size from 97,139-sf to 1,225,778-sf; the sale price range is $0.32 to $7.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $2.17/sf and the median is $0.72/ sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1.00/sf or $318,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $1,624,582, impact fees at $542,434, and the land value is estimated at $317,552 for a total cost of$2,485,000 2019-00168 Page 3 of 9 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of low-income apartments in Immokalee. The sales occurred from May 2014 to March 2017. The sales range in building size from 23,760-sf to 145,460-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 97,139-sf to 448,232-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 18.4% to 32.5%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 9.8%. The buildings were built from 1977 to 2007. The sales range from $20.52 to $54.65/sf of building area including land. Sale # 1 is the sale of a property with tax credits (low income), the sale occurred in March 2017 for $1,200,000, contains a building area of 24,994-sf and the land size is 101,930-sf. The building was built in 2007. The price per square foot of building area including land is $48.01. All sales have a mean price of$41.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$46.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf of building area including land or $1,407,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$4,700 for a value of$1,400,000 rounded. PAO provided a value based on the price per units. The improved sales mentioned above range in value from $10,988 to $49,688 per unit. The sale at $10,988/unit has been completely renovated since the sale and was originally a tax credit property. The mean price per unit is $35,000 and the median price is $39,000. PAO reconciled at $35,000/ unit or $1,610,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$4,700 for a value of$1,605,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value of the subject by the Sales Comparison Approach at $1,500,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for market rents and tax credit apartments (low income) in the area of the subject. PAO provided market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors, who indicate asking rents in the range of$1.03 to $1.57/sf/month, with a mean of$1.35 and a median of$1.40/sf/month. CoStar, indicates rents for Collier County at $1.43/sf/month and Lee County at $1.3 8/sf/month. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$1.08/sf/month. A rental survey conducted by Collier County indicates tax credit rents (low income) at $0.95/sf/month. PAO used actual rents at the subject at $475 for the 1-bedroom apartment and $525 for the 2- bedroom apartments on a monthly basis for a gross rent of$265,800 or $0.71/sf/ month. PAO provided vacancy support for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the 2019-00168 Page 4 of 9 market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 2.30% to 7.10% with an average of 4.84% Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates is in the range of 3.5% to 6.4% with a mean of 4.66% and a median of 4.3%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 3.33% to 8.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $13,290. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various apartments located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) ranges from 24% to 99% with a mean of 55.77%. PAO used an expense ratio of 55% or $138,881. The net operating income (NOI) is $113,630. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The average cap rate from these surveys is 5.67%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 6.06%. Confidential information from PAO indicated a cap rate of 6.11%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated cap rates in the range of 3.5% to 6.50% with an average of 5.20% for the 4th Quarter 2018. PAO used a cap rate of 6.3% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of$113,630 capitalizes at 7.5% indicates value of$1,515,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$4,700 for a value of$1,510,000 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. 2019-00168 Page 5 of 9 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. 193.011outlines 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 or actual 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 54-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 2019-00168 Page 6 of 9 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PAO's just value conclusion: $1,064,949. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 28-page report which consisted of a cover page, table of content, an independent auditor's report on the subject Summer Glen of Immokalee property; balance sheets, statement of operations, statement of changes in Partners' equity (Deficit); statement of Cash Flows; notes on financial statement; management fee calculation, insurance disclosure and return to owner. Also included is a report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards; audit findings on compliance; accompanying multiple family housing borrower balance sheet-form RD 3560-10; accounts payable detail schedule; accompanying multiple family housing project budget-form RD 3560-7; supporting documentation for these forms. PET did not develop the three approaches to value. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the evidence noted above and proceeded to rebuttal of PAO's evidence. PET indicated that the property was not a tax credit property as PAO used an improved tax credit sale. PET indicated the property has no equity, the partners owe more money than the property is worth and the property cannot be sold under the restricted use. PET objected to PAO's cost approach using Marshall Swift cost manual, as the manual does not have a category for a restricted rent property and the depreciation allocated by PAO is too low for the age of the property; PET objected to PAO's land sales, as not comparable to the subject. PET objected to PAO's improved sales as not comparable and not a valid sample of sales. In the Income Approach, PAO used the actual rents generated from the property. PET objected to PAO's operating expense ratio of 55% as too low with no support. PET indicated the actual expenses for the property are closer to 75% to 85% of the effective gross income and that PAO's expenses are understated. PET indicated PAO's cap rate at 7.5% (6.3% loaded with 1.2%) is understated, PET indicated low income properties with high operating expenses warrant a higher cap rate. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject property was not valued differently than other properties and was valued under Florida Statute 193.011. PAO indicated the property has been under the same ownership for some time and had a similar assessed value for the past two years with no appeal. PAO indicated that support is given for the operating expense ratio of 55% in their report. PAO indicated that all land sales and improved sales 2019-00168 Page 7 of 9 are verified and validated with the deeds. PAO indicated an adjustment was made for the hurricane damage caused by Irma. PAO addressed the statement made by PET that the property could not be sold, PAO indicted there is no law which prevents the property from being sold. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value. SM has taken into account PET's income and expenses into consideration as provided on page 4 of PET's evidence. The actual total income for the year 2018 is reported at $268,895. If the operating expenses of operating & maintenance expenses of$90,940, utilities expense of$17,918 and administrative expenses of$73,827 are deducted from the total income(expenses total $182,685 or 68% of total income), the net income is $86,210. If net income is capitalized at 7.5%, per PAO's estimate, the indicated value is $1,150,000 rounded less TPP (tangible personal property) of$4,700 for a value of$1,145,300. The indicated value is higher than the just value of$1,064,949. 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 2019-00168: 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 2019-00168 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00168 Page 9 of 9 1111 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR 485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00169 Parcel ID 77160080003 Petitioner name CRAIG CARDELLA Property 1810 LAKE TRAFFORD RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 1,136,368.00 913,460.00 913,460.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,136,368.00 913,460.00 913,460.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,136,368.00 913,460.00 913,460.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 10/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/25/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiq2 ❑ 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 2019-00169 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00169: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Craig Cardella, Property Tax Advisor. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $913,460. The value has changed from $1,136,368 since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as seven-one story, class D, apartment buildings containing 14-1-bedroom units and 27-2-bedroom units for a total of 41 units. The building contains 33,432-sf and the land size is 189,922-sf. The buildings were built in 1985. The property has suffered damage from hurricane Irma. The property is located at 1810 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee FL. The following information was taken from PET's evidence, page 7. The information is presented here by SM to clarify the type of property under review. The property is known as Heritage Villas of Immokalee, Ltd, (the Partnership). The partnership was organized in 1982 for the purpose of constructing and operating the subject. The subject is a low- income property financed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and is regulated by Rural Development as to rent charges and operating methods. The apartment community began operations in March 1985. The management of the Partnership and the ongoing management of Heritage Villas Apartments are vested in the Partners. The Partnership has hired Dimension One Management, Inc., an affiliate of one of the partners, to provide day to day management for the property. Compensation for such services is as determined under the partnership and management agreement. The Partnership Agreement remains in effect until December 31, 2044. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 2019-00169 Page 2 of 9 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 47 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 buildings. 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 contains the deed with legal description, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales. Included is supporting income data for multi-family markets in Florida and the United States for multi-family capitalization rates, and local vacancy rates and rental data. PAO included comparable building sales from CoStar in Collier and Lee Counties; 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 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Immokalee and Collier County. The land sales occurred from June 2014 to August 2018; with one sale that occurred in May 2019, this 2019 sale is being used for value trending. The land sales range in size from 97,139-sf to 1,225,778-sf; the sale price range is $0.32 to $7.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $2.17/sf and the median is $0.72/ sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1.25/sf x 189,922-sf or $237,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $1,365,286, impact fees at $499,724, and the land value is estimated at $237,402 for a total cost of$2,102,000 2019-00169 Page 3 of 9 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of low-income apartments in Immokalee. The sales occurred from May 2014 to March 2017. The sales range in building size from 23,760-sf to 145,460-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 97,139-sf to 448,232-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 18.4% to 32.5%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 9.8%. The buildings were built from 1977 to 2007. The sales range from $20.52 to $54.65/sf of building area including land. Sale # 1 is the sale of a property with tax credits (low income), the sale occurred in March 2017 for $1,200,000, contains a building area of 24,994-sf and the land size is 101,930-sf. The building was built in 2007. The price per square foot of building area including land is $48.01. All sales have a mean price of$41.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$46.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf of building area including land or $1,504,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$8,131 for a value of$1,496,000 rounded. PAO provided a value based on the price per units. The improved sales mentioned above range in value from $10,988 to $49,688 per unit. The sale at $10,988/unit has been completely renovated since the sale and was originally a tax credit property. The mean price per unit is $35,000 and the median price is $39,000. PAO reconciled at $35,000/ unit or $1,435,000 rounded, less TPP of$8,131 indicates a value of$1,427,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value of the subject by the Sales Comparison Approach at $1,450,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for market rents and tax credit apartments (low income) in the area of the subject. PAO provided market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors, who indicate asking rents in the range of$1.03 to $1.57/sf/month, with a mean of$1.35 and a median of$1.40/sf/month. CoStar, indicates rents for Collier County at $1.43/sf/month and Lee County at $1.38/sf/month. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$1.08/sf/month. A rental survey conducted by Collier County indicates tax credit rents (low income) at $0.95/sf/month. PAO used actual rents at the subject at $475 for the 1-bedroom apartment and $525 for the 2- bedroom apartments on a monthly basis for a gross rent of$265,800 or $0.62/sf/ month. PAO provided vacancy support for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 2.30% to 2019-00169 Page 4 of 9 7.10% with an average of 4.84% Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates is in the range of 3.5% to 6.4% with a mean of 4.66% and a median of 4.3%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 3.33% to 8.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $12,495. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various apartments located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) ranges from 24% to 99% with a mean of 55.77%. PAO used an expense ratio of 55% or $130,573. The net operating income (NOI) is $106,832. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The average cap rate from these surveys is 5.67%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 6.06%. Confidential information from PAO indicated a cap rate of 6.11%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated cap rates in the range of 3.5% to 6.50% with an average of 5.20% for the 4th Quarter 2018. PAO used a cap rate of 6.3% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of$106,832 capitalizes at 7.5% indicates value of$1,424,000 rounded, less TPP of$8,131 indicates a value of$1,416,000 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 2019-00169 Page 5 of 9 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. 193.011outlines 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 or actual 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 54-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 2019-00169 Page 6 of 9 Correctness. PAO's just value conclusion: $913,460. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 28-page report which consisted of a cover page, table of content, an independent auditor's report on the subject Summer Glen of Immokalee property; balance sheets, statement of operations, statement of changes in Partners' equity (Deficit); statement of Cash Flows; notes on financial statement; management fee calculation, insurance disclosure and return to owner. Also included is a report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards; audit findings on compliance; accompanying multiple family housing borrower balance sheet-form RD 3560-10; accounts payable detail schedule; accompanying multiple family housing project budget-form RD 3560-7; supporting documentation for these forms. PET did not develop the three approaches to value. PEI's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the evidence noted above and proceeded to rebuttal of PAO's evidence. PET indicated that the property was not a tax credit property as PAO used an improved tax credit sale. PET indicated the property has no equity, the partners owe more money than the property is worth and the property cannot be sold under the restricted use. PET objected to PAO's cost approach using Marshall Swift cost manual, as the manual does not have a category for a restricted rent property and the depreciation allocated by PAO is too low for the age of the property; PET objected to PAO's land sales, as not comparable to the subject. PET objected to PAO's improved sales as not comparable and not a valid sample of sales. In the Income Approach, PAO used the actual rents generated from the property. PET objected to PAO's operating expense ratio of 55% as too low with no support. PET indicated the actual expenses for the property are closer to 75% to 85% of the effective gross income and that PAO's expenses are understated. PET indicated PAO's cap rate at 7.5% (6.3% loaded with 1.2%) is understated, PET indicated low income properties with high operating expenses warrant a higher cap rate. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject property was not valued differently than other properties and was valued under Florida Statute 193.011. PAO indicated that support is given for the operating expense ratio of 55% in their report. PAO indicated that all land sales and improved sales are verified and validated with the deeds. PAO indicated an adjustment was made for the hurricane damage caused by Irma. PAO addressed the statement made by PET that the property could not be sold, PAO indicted there is no law 2019-00169 Page 7 of 9 which prevents the property from being sold. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value. SM has taken into account PET's income and expenses into consideration as provided on page 4 of PET's evidence. The potential income for the year 2018 is reported at $248,592 and the vacancy is reported at 16.7%. The vacancy is high for this year due to hurricane damage with some units not habitable, the vacancy in the year 2017 was 8.4%. If the vacancy is estimated at 10% of potential income (SM's estimate) and the other income is added, the total income is estimated at $229,430. If the operating expenses of operating & maintenance expenses of$79,216, utilities expense of$22,203 and administrative expenses of$57,724 are deducted from the total income(expenses total $159,143 or 69.3% of estimated total income), the net income is $70,287. If net income is capitalized at 7.5%, per PAO's estimate; the indicated value is $937,160 rounded, less TPP of$8,131 indicates a value of$929,000 rounded. The indicated value is higher than the just value of$913,460. 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 2019-00169: 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 2019-00169 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00169 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00170 Parcel ID 77160160004 Petitioner name CRAIG CARDELLA Property 1802 CUSTERAVE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 994,668.00 994,668.00 994,668.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 993,381.00 993,381.00 993,381.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 993,381.00 993,381.00 993,381.00 *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) WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 10/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/25/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00170 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00170: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Craig Cardella, Property Tax Advisor. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $994,668. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as six-one story, class C, apartment buildings containing 8-1- bedroom units and 27-2-bedroom units for a total of 35 units. The building contains 28,466-sf and the land size is 182,516-sf. The buildings were built in 1983. The property has suffered damage from hurricane Irma. The property is located at 1802 Custer Avenue, Immokalee FL. The following information was taken from PET's evidence, page 7. The information is presented here by SM to clarify the type of property under review. The property is known as Southern Villas of Immokalee, Ltd, (the Partnership). The partnership was organized in 1982 for the purpose of constructing and operating the subject. The subject is a low- income property financed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and is regulated by Rural Development as to rent charges and operating methods. The apartment community began operations in 1983. The management of the Partnership and the ongoing management of Heritage Villas Apartments are vested in the Partners. The Partnership has hired Dimension One Management, Inc., an affiliate of one of the partners, to provide day to day management for the property. Compensation for such services is as determined under the partnership and management agreement. The Partnership Agreement remains in effect until December 31, 2042. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 2019-00170 Page 2 of 9 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 55 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 buildings. 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 contains the deed with legal description, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales. Included is supporting income data for multi-family markets in Florida and the United States for multi-family capitalization rates, and local vacancy rates and rental data. PAO included comparable building sales from CoStar in Collier and Lee Counties; 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 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Immokalee and Collier County. The land sales occurred from June 2014 to August 2018; with one sale that occurred in May 2019, this 2019 sale is being used for value trending. The land sales range in size from 97,139-sf to 1,225,778-sf; the sale price range is $0.32 to $7.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $2.17/sf and the median is $0.72/ sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1.25/sf x 182,516-sf or $228,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $1,378,495, impact fees at $427,099, and the land value is estimated at $228,146 for a total cost of$2,034,000 2019-00170 Page 3 of 9 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of low-income apartments in Immokalee. The sales occurred from May 2014 to March 2017. The sales range in building size from 23,760-sf to 145,460-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 97,139-sf to 448,232-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 18.4% to 32.5%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 9.8%. The buildings were built from 1977 to 2007. The sales range from $20.52 to $54.65/sf of building area including land. Sale # 1 is the sale of a property with tax credits (low income), the sale occurred in March 2017 for $1,200,000, contains a building area of 24,994-sf and the land size is 101,930-sf. The building was built in 2007. The price per square foot of building area including land is $48.01. All sales have a mean price of$41.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$46.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf of building area including land or $1,281,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$17,330 for a value of$1,264,000 rounded. PAO provided a value based on the price per units. The improved sales mentioned above range in value from $10,988 to $49,688 per unit. The sale at $10,988/unit has been completely renovated since the sale and was originally a tax credit property. The mean price per unit is $35,000 and the median price is $39,000. PAO reconciled at $35,000/ unit or $1,225,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$17,330 for a value of$1,208,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value of the subject by the Sales Comparison Approach at $1,250,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for market rents and tax credit apartments (low income) in the area of the subject. PAO provided market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors, who indicate asking rents in the range of$1.03 to $1.57/sf/month, with a mean of$1.35 and a median of$1.40/sf/month. CoStar, indicates rents for Collier County at $1.43/sf/month and Lee County at $1.38/sf/month. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$1.08/sf/month. A rental survey conducted by Collier County indicates tax credit rents (low income) at $0.95/sf/month. PAO used actual rents at the subject at $475 for the 1-bedroom apartment and $525 for the 2- bedroom apartments on a monthly basis for a gross rent of$215,700 or $0.63/sf/ month. PAO provided vacancy support for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the 2019-00170 Page 4 of 9 market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 2.30% to 7.10% with an average of 4.84% Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates is in the range of 3.5% to 6.4% with a mean of 4.66% and a median of 4.3%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 3.33% to 8.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $10,785. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various apartments located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) ranges from 24% to 99% with a mean of 55.77%. PAO used an expense ratio of 55% or $112,703. The net operating income (NOI) is $92,212. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The average cap rate from these surveys is 5.67%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 6.06%. Confidential information from PAO indicated a cap rate of 6.11%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated cap rates in the range of 3.5% to 6.50% with an average of 5.20% for the 4th Quarter 2018. PAO used a cap rate of 6.3% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of$92,212 capitalizes at 7.5% indicates value of$1,229,000 rounded, less TPP of$17,330 indicates a value of$1,212,000 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. 2019-00170 Page 5 of 9 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. 193.011outlines 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 or actual 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 54-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 2019-00170 Page 6 of 9 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PAO's just value conclusion: $994,668. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 28-page report which consisted of a cover page, table of content, an independent auditor's report on the subject Summer Glen of Immokalee property; balance sheets, statement of operations, statement of changes in Partners' equity (Deficit); statement of Cash Flows; notes on financial statement; management fee calculation, insurance disclosure and return to owner. Also included is a report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards; audit findings on compliance; accompanying multiple family housing borrower balance sheet-form RD 3560-10; accounts payable detail schedule; accompanying multiple family housing project budget-form RD 3560-7; supporting documentation for these forms. PET did not develop the three approaches to value. PET'S evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the evidence noted above and proceeded to rebuttal of PAO's evidence. PET indicated that the property was not a tax credit property as PAO used an improved tax credit sale. PET indicated the property has no equity, the partners owe more money than the property is worth and the property cannot be sold under the restricted use. PET objected to PAO's cost approach using Marshall Swift cost manual, as the manual does not have a category for a restricted rent property and the depreciation allocated by PAO is too low for the age of the property; PET objected to PAO's land sales, as not comparable to the subject. PET objected to PAO's improved sales as not comparable and not a valid sample of sales. In the Income Approach, PAO used the actual rents generated from the property. PET objected to PAO's operating expense ratio of 55% as too low with no support. PET indicated the actual expenses for the property are closer to 75% to 85% of the effective gross income and that PAO's expenses are understated. PET indicated PAO's cap rate at 7.5% (6.3% loaded with 1.2%) is understated, PET indicated low income properties with high operating expenses warrant a higher cap rate. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject property was not valued differently than other properties and was valued under Florida Statute 193.011. PAO indicated that support is given for the operating expense ratio of 55% in their report. PAO indicated that all land sales and improved sales are verified and validated with the deeds. PAO indicated an adjustment was made for the hurricane damage caused by Irma. PAO addressed the 2019-00170 Page 7 of 9 statement made by PET that the property could not be sold, PAO indicted there is no law which prevents the property from being sold. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value. SM has taken into account PET's income and expenses into consideration as provided on page 4 of PET's evidence. The potential income for the year 2018 is reported at $278,544 and the vacancy is reported at 11.1%. The vacancy is high for this year due to hurricane damage with some units not habitable, the vacancy in the year 2017 was 6.4%. Taking PET's vacancy and adding other income, the total income is $255,217. If the operating expenses of operating & maintenance expenses of$56,297, utilities expense of$55,008 and administrative expenses of$61,013 are deducted from the total income(expenses total $172,318 or 67.5% of estimated total income), the net income is $82,899. If net income is capitalized at 7.5%, per PAO's estimate; the indicated value is $1,105,320, less TPP of$17,330 the indicated value is $1,088,000 rounded. The indicated value is higher than the just value of$994,668. 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 2019-00170: 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). 2019-00170 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00170 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00172 Parcel ID 00074920006 Petitioner name CRAIG CARDELLA Property 1022 GARDEN LAKE CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,635,978.00 1,390,276.00 1,390,276.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,635,978.00 1,390,276.00 1,390,276.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,635,978.00 1,390,276.00 1,390,276.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 10/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/25/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axion ❑ 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 2019-00172 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00172: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Craig Cardella, Property Tax Advisor. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,390,276. The value has changed from $1,635,978 since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as fourteen-one story, class D, apartment buildings containing 14-1-bedroom units and 51-2-bedroom units for a total of 65 units. The building contains 48,802-sf and the land size is 313,632-sf. The buildings were built in 1990. The property has suffered damage from hurricane Irma. The property is located at 1022 Garden Lake Circle, Immokalee FL. The following information was taken from PET's evidence, page 7. The information is presented here by SM to clarify the type of property under review. The property is known as Garden Lake of Immokalee, Ltd, (the Partnership). The partnership was organized in 1990 for the purpose of constructing and operating the subject. The subject is a low- income property financed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and is regulated by Rural Development as to rent charges and operating methods. The apartment community began operations in August 1990. The management of the Partnership and the ongoing management of Garden Lake Apartments are vested in the Partners. The Partnership has hired Dimension One Management, Inc., an affiliate of one of the partners, to provide day to day management for the property. Compensation for such services is as determined under the partnership and management agreement. The Partnership Agreement remains in effect until December 31, 2050. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 2019-00172 Page 2 of 9 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 60 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 buildings. 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 contains the deed with legal description, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales. Included is supporting income data for multi-family markets in Florida and the United States for multi-family capitalization rates, and local vacancy rates and rental data. PAO included comparable building sales from CoStar in Collier and Lee Counties; 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 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Immokalee and Collier County. The land sales occurred from June 2014 to August 2018; with one sale that occurred in May 2019, this 2019 sale is being used for value trending. The land sales range in size from 97,139-sf to 1,225,778-sf; the sale price range is $0.32 to $7.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $2.17/sf and the median is $0.72/ sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1.00/sf x 313,632-sf or $314,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $2,440,704, impact fees at $788,711, and the land value is estimated at $313,632 for a total cost of$3,543,000 2019-00172 Page 3 of 9 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of low-income apartments in Immokalee. The sales occurred from May 2014 to March 2017. The sales range in building size from 23,760-sf to 145,460-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 97,139-sf to 448,232-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 18.4% to 32.5%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 9.8%. The buildings were built from 1977 to 2007. The sales range from $20.52 to $54.65/sf of building area including land. Sale # 1 is the sale of a property with tax credits (low income), the sale occurred in March 2017 for $1,200,000, contains a building area of 24,994-sf and the land size is 101,930-sf. The building was built in 2007. The price per square foot of building area including land is $48.01. All sales have a mean price of$41.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$46.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf of building area including land or $2,196,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$1,252 for a value of$2,195,000 rounded. PAO provided a value based on the price per units. The improved sales mentioned above range in value from $10,988 to $49,688 per unit. The sale at $10,988/unit has been completely renovated since the sale and was originally a tax credit property. The mean price per unit is $35,000 and the median price is $39,000. PAO reconciled at $35,000/ unit or $2,275,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$1,252 for a value of$2,274,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value of the subject by the Sales Comparison Approach at $2,250,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for market rents and tax credit apartments (low income) in the area of the subject. PAO provided market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors, who indicate asking rents in the range of$1.03 to $1.57/sf/month, with a mean of$1.35 and a median of$1.40/sf/month. CoStar, indicates rents for Collier County at $1.43/sf/month and Lee County at $1.38/sf/month. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$1.08/sf/month. A rental survey conducted by Collier County indicates tax credit rents (low income) at $0.95/sf/month. PAO used actual rents at the subject at $475 for the 1-bedroom apartment and $525 for the 2- bedroom apartments on a monthly basis for a gross rent of$401,100 or $0.68/sf/ month. PAO provided vacancy support for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the 2019-00172 Page 4 of 9 market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 2.30% to 7.10% with an average of 4.84% Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates is in the range of 3.5% to 6.4% with a mean of 4.66% and a median of 4.3%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 3.33% to 8.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $20,055. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various apartments located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) ranges from 24% to 99% with a mean of 55.77%. PAO used an expense ratio of 55% or $209,575. The net operating income (NOI) is $171,470. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Vaibridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The average cap rate from these surveys is 5.67%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 6.06%. Confidential information from PAO indicated a cap rate of 6.11%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated cap rates in the range of 3.5% to 6.50% with an average of 5.20% for the 4th Quarter 2018. PAO used a cap rate of 6.3% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of$171,470 capitalizes at 7.5% indicates value of$2,286,000 rounded, less TPP of$1,252 indicates a value of$2,285,000 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. 2019-00172 Page 5 of 9 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. 193.011outlines 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 or actual 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 54-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 2019-00172 Page 6 of 9 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PAO's just value conclusion: $1,390,276. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 29-page report which consisted of a cover page, table of content, an independent auditor's report on the subject Summer Glen of Immokalee property; balance sheets, statement of operations, statement of changes in Partners' equity (Deficit); statement of Cash Flows; notes on financial statement; management fee calculation, insurance disclosure and return to owner. Also included is a report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards; audit findings on compliance; accompanying multiple family housing borrower balance sheet-form RD 3560-10; accounts payable detail schedule; accompanying multiple family housing project budget-form RD 3560-7; supporting documentation for these forms. PET did not develop the three approaches to value. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the evidence noted above and proceeded to rebuttal of PAO's evidence. PET indicated that the property was not a tax credit property as PAO used an improved tax credit sale. PET indicated the property has no equity, the partners owe more money than the property is worth and the property cannot be sold under the restricted use. PET objected to PAO's cost approach using Marshall Swift cost manual, as the manual does not have a category for a restricted rent property and the depreciation allocated by PAO is too low for the age of the property; PET objected to PAO's land sales, as not comparable to the subject. PET objected to PAO's improved sales as not comparable and not a valid sample of sales. In the Income Approach, PAO used the actual rents generated from the property. PET objected to PAO's operating expense ratio of 55% as too low with no support. PET indicated the actual expenses for the property are closer to 75% to 85% of the effective gross income and that PAO's expenses are understated. PET indicated PAO's cap rate at 7.5% (6.3% loaded with 1.2%) is understated, PET indicated low income properties with high operating expenses warrant a higher cap rate. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject property was not valued differently than other properties and was valued under Florida Statute 193.011. PAO indicated that support is given for the operating expense ratio of 55% in their report. PAO indicated that all land sales and improved sales are verified and validated with the deeds. PAO indicated an adjustment was made for the hurricane damage caused by Irma. PAO addressed the 2019-00172 Page 7 of 9 statement made by PET that the property could not be sold, PAO indicted there is no law which prevents the property from being sold. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value. SM has taken into account PET's income and expenses into consideration as provided on page 4 of PET's evidence. The potential income for the year 2018 is reported at $401,844 and the vacancy is reported at 11.8%. The vacancy is high for this year due to hurricane damage with some units not habitable, the vacancy in the year 2017 was 7%. Taking PET's vacancy and adding other income, the total income is $364,756. If the operating expenses of operating & maintenance expenses of$132,506, utilities expense of$29,862 and administrative expenses of$97,407 are deducted from the total income(expenses total $259,775 or 71.2% of estimated total income), the net income is $104,981. If net income is capitalized at 7.5%, per PAO's estimate; the indicated value is $1,399,746, less TPP of $1,252 the indicated value is $1,398,500 rounded. The indicated value is higher than the just value of$1,390,276. 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 2019-00172: 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). 2019-00172 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00172 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. L RIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. Fij These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00173 Parcel ID 00082920001 Petitioner name CRAIG CARDELLA Property 1803 ASH LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,285,843.00 1,127,796.00 1,127,796.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,246,933.00 1,124,295.00 1,124,295.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,246,933.00 1,124,295.00 1,124,295.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 10/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/25/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00173 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00173: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Craig Cardella, Property Tax Advisor. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,127,796. The value has changed from $1,285,843 since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as eleven-one story, class D, apartment buildings containing a total of 42-2-bedroom units. The building contains 30,900-sf and the land size is 216,929-sf. The buildings were built in 1988. The property has suffered damage from hurricane Irma. The property is located at 1803 Ash Lane, Immokalee FL. The following information was taken from PET's evidence, page 7. The information is presented here by SM to clarify the type of property under review. The partnership, Immokalee RRH Ltd, was organized in 1988 for the purpose of constructing and operating the subject. The subject is a low-income property financed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and is regulated by Rural Development as to rent charges and operating methods. The apartment community began operations in September 1988. The management of the Partnership and the ongoing management of Willowbrook Place Apartments are vested in the Partners. The Partnership has hired Dimension One Management, Inc., an affiliate of one of the partners, to provide day to day management for the property. Compensation for such services is as determined under the partnership and management agreement. The Partnership Agreement remains in effect until December 31, 2048. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 2019-00173 Page 2 of 9 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 52 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 buildings. 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 contains the deed with legal description, photos of the subject property, photos of comparable building sales. Included is supporting income data for multi-family markets in Florida and the United States for multi-family capitalization rates, and local vacancy rates and rental data. PAO included comparable building sales from CoStar in Collier and Lee Counties; 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 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Immokalee and Collier County. The land sales occurred from June 2014 to August 2018; with one sale that occurred in May 2019, this 2019 sale is being used for value trending. The land sales range in size from 97,139-sf to 1,225,778-sf; the sale price range is $0.32 to $7.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $2.17/sf and the median is $0.72/ sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1.00/sf x 216,929-sf or $217,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving is estimated at $1,531,398, impact fees at $508,510, and the land value is estimated at $216,929 for a total cost of$2,257,000 2019-00173 Page 3 of 9 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of low-income apartments in Immokalee. The sales occurred from May 2014 to March 2017. The sales range in building size from 23,760-sf to 145,460-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 97,139-sf to 448,232-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 18.4% to 32.5%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 9.8%. The buildings were built from 1977 to 2007. The sales range from $20.52 to $54.65/sf of building area including land. Sale # 1 is the sale of a property with tax credits (low income), the sale occurred in March 2017 for $1,200,000, contains a building area of 24,994-sf and the land size is 101,930-sf. The building was built in 2007. The price per square foot of building area including land is $48.01. All sales have a mean price of$41.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$46.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf of building area including land or $1,391,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$10,663 for a value of$1,380,000 rounded. PAO provided a value based on the price per units. The improved sales mentioned above range in value from $10,988 to $49,688 per unit. The sale at $10,988/unit has been completely renovated since the sale and was originally a tax credit property. The mean price per unit is $35,000 and the median price is $39,000. PAO reconciled at $35,000/ unit or $1,470,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$10,663 for a value of$1,459,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value of the subject by the Sales Comparison Approach at $1,425,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for market rents and tax credit apartments (low income) in the area of the subject. PAO provided market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors, who indicate asking rents in the range of$1.03 to $1.57/sf/month, with a mean of$1.35 and a median of$1.40/sf/month. CoStar, indicates rents for Collier County at $1.43/sf/month and Lee County at $1.38/sf/month. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$1.08/sf/month. A rental survey conducted by Collier County indicates tax credit rents (low income) at $0.95/sf/month. PAO used actual rents at the subject at $525 for the 2- bedroom apartments on a monthly basis for a gross rent of$264,600 or $0.71/sf/month. PAO provided vacancy support for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 2.30% to 2019-00173 Page 4 of 9 7.10% with an average of 4.84% Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates is in the range of 3.5% to 6.4% with a mean of 4.66% and a median of 4.3%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 3.33% to 8.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $13,230. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various apartments located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) ranges from 24% to 99% with a mean of 55.77%. PAO used an expense ratio of 55% or $138,254. The net operating income (NOI) is $113,117. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The average cap rate from these surveys is 5.67%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 6.06%. Confidential information from PAO indicated a cap rate of 6.11%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated cap rates in the range of 3.5% to 6.50% with an average of 5.20% for the 4th Quarter 2018. PAO used a cap rate of 6.3% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of$113,117 capitalizes at 7.5% indicates value of$1,508,000 rounded, less TPP of$10,663 indicates a value of$1,497,000 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 2019-00173 Page 5 of 9 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 - 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 or actual 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 54-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 2019-00173 Page 6 of 9 Correctness. PAO's just value conclusion: $1,127,796. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 29-page report which consisted of a cover page, table of content, an independent auditor's report on the subject Summer Glen of Immokalee property; balance sheets, statement of operations, statement of changes in Partners' equity (Deficit); statement of Cash Flows; notes on financial statement; management fee calculation, insurance disclosure and return to owner. Also included is a report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards; audit findings on compliance; accompanying multiple family housing borrower balance sheet-form RD 3560-10; accounts payable detail schedule; accompanying multiple family housing project budget-form RD 3560-7; supporting documentation for these forms. PET did not develop the three approaches to value. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the evidence noted above and proceeded to rebuttal of PAO's evidence. PET indicated that the property was not a tax credit property as PAO used an improved tax credit sale. PET indicated the property has no equity, the partners owe more money than the property is worth and the property cannot be sold under the restricted use. PET objected to PAO's cost approach using Marshall Swift cost manual, as the manual does not have a category for a restricted rent property and the depreciation allocated by PAO is too low for the age of the property; PET objected to PAO's land sales, as not comparable to the subject. PET objected to PAO's improved sales as not comparable and not a valid sample of sales. In the Income Approach, PAO used the actual rents generated from the property. PET objected to PAO's operating expense ratio of 55% as too low with no support. PET indicated the actual expenses for the property are closer to 75% to 85% of the effective gross income and that PAO's expenses are understated. PET indicated PAO's cap rate at 7.5% (6.3% loaded with 1.2%) is understated, PET indicated low income properties with high operating expenses warrant a higher cap rate. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject property was not valued differently than other properties and was valued under Florida Statute 193.011. PAO indicated that support is given for the operating expense ratio of 55% in their report. PAO indicated that all land sales and improved sales are verified and validated with the deeds. PAO indicated an adjustment was made for the hurricane damage caused by Irma. PAO addressed the statement made by PET that the property could not be sold, PAO indicted there is no law 2019-00173 Page 7 of 9 which prevents the property from being sold. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value. SM has taken into account PET's income and expenses into consideration as provided on page 4 of PET's evidence. The potential income for the year 2018 is reported at $275,328 and the vacancy is reported at 11.8%. The vacancy is high for this year due to hurricane damage with some units not habitable, the vacancy in the year 2017 was 5.7%. Taking PET's vacancy and adding other income, the total income is $253,836. If the operating expenses of operating & maintenance expenses of$95,671, utilities expense of$25,519 and administrative expenses of$66,656 are deducted from the total income(expenses total $187,846 or 74% of estimated total income), the net income is $65,990. If net income is capitalized at 7.5%, per PAO's estimate; the indicated value is $879,867, less TPP of$10,663 the indicated value is $869,200 rounded. As mentioned, this property has a high vacancy and high expenses for the year 2018, the year after the hurricane; the vacancy and expenses are atypical and reflect one year of income only and SM's estimated value is based on these atypical expenses and vacancies. From the evidence submitted by PET and PAO, PAO's evidence is more credible and relevant. 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 2019-00173: 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 2019-00173 Page 8 of 9 194.301(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. 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. 2019-00173 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00177 Parcel ID 22493000080 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS, LTD Property 15485 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [✓ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 5,378,196.00 5,378,196.00 5,378,196.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,378,196.00 5,378,196.00 5,378,196.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,378,196.00 5,378,196.00 5,378,196.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/19/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/20/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ 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 2019-00177 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00177: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The owner (Baer's Furniture) was represented by Property Tax Consultants. The PET did not attend the hearing but did submit an email request to have submitted evidence considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 2-story furniture store built in 1999. The subject's address is 15485 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 63,032 SF situated upon a site of 182,952 SF (i.e. 4.20 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no recent arm's length transfers of the subject. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$5,378,196 or $85/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar lease comparable data, CoStar comparable rental data, Big Box Retail Study Conclusions, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 survey, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I did accept additional back-up evidence from the PAO related to aerial photos & other details related to PAO land sales that were already in the record. This was not new evidence, just clarification evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, or $3,659,040, plus $1,338,979 of impact fees for a total of$4,995,019 (which is 92.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 5 commercial land sale 2019-00177 Page 2 of 4 indicators. Land Sales #1 ($30.38/SF), #4 ($24.11/SF), and #5 ($26.49/SF) are all relatively 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. 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 $2,911,703 & site improvements/paving at $206,808, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $8,117,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 11 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63 (larger Home Depot in Ft. Myers) to $547/SF, for an average of$268/SF. Greater weight is given to the fee simple sales. Sale #1 was a dark Toys-R-Us ($213/SF) & Sale #8 was a dark Sports Authority ($235/SF). The PAO concludes $125/SF X 63,302 SF = $7,879,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$502,996 for a value indication of$6,707,000, or $106/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the very well supported land value + impact fees = $4,995,019 (which is 92.9% of the total assessment). PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 7 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET provides a subject tax roll summary sheet, DR-493 form, and comparable sales tax roll summary sheets. The PET incorrectly notes the subject's just value at $161 .43/SF, because the subject is a 2-story building & the PET only considered the ground floor. The subject's just value is actually $85.32/SF, which is LESS THAN all 3 of the improved sales offered by the PET. The PET's three sales sale are all multi-tenant centers, not a single-user big box (like the subject). Therefore, the PET's own evidence supports the PAO's just value in this hearing on a $/ SF basis, yet they are really different types of retail structures. It appears the PET was trying to give weight to the untimely sale date of his first sale, which was well after the assessment date & not worthy of consideration. RULING: If anything, the PAO's assessment looks very low and the land sales alone could support a higher value. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00177: 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 2019-00177 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00177 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. raj Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00185 Parcel ID 00176685304 Petitioner name JERRY MYER Property 9051 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 5,285,204.00 5,285,204.00 4,756,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,355,021.00 3,355,021.00 3,355,021.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,355,021.00 3,355,021.00 3,355,021.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiql ❑ 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 2019-00185 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00185: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (L&A Realty Company) was represented by Mr. Tom Spradlin. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a shopping center known as the "Pavilion Terraces" built in 1992. The subject does not have any 'big box' stores. All of the tenants in the subject are `locals'. The subject's address is 9051 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 26,930 SF situated upon a site of 69,260 SF (i.e. 1.59 acres). A portion of the subject's structure is 2-story. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in September 2015 for $6.2M. The contested just value of$5,285,204 equates to 85.2% of that purchase price slightly more than 3 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$5,285,204, or $196/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/ rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. The PAO submitted historical building permit information dating back to the subject's original construction date. The CoStar details related to the subject's prior sale in 2015 are also in evidence. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. (A copy of that information was also provided to the PET at the hearing.) PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & 2019-00185 Page 2 of 5 credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $50/SF X 69,260 SF = $3,463,020, plus $463,889 of impact fees for a total of$3,926,909 (which is 74.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 6 commercial land sale indicators. The first 5 are actual land sales, while #6 is a `residual' indicator from the subject's prior 2015 improved sale after the PAO's improvement assessment is backed out of the sales price. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Tamiami Trail North. The PAO provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO then added the depreciated value of the improvements $1,938,162 & site improvements/paving at $103,806, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$5,969,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $120.16-$416.67/SF. The subject's prior sale (in 2015 for $230/SF) is presented as Sale #9. The PAO concludes $240/SF X 26,930 SF = $6,463,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$424,148 for a value indication of$5,302,000, or $197/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 5 evidence submittals into Axia prior to the hearing. The PET's evidence included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, subject's 2018 `profit & loss' income statements, subject's rent roll (as of December 2018), RealtyRates.com Investor Survey (2nd quarter of 2019), long roster of Florida shopping center sales [PAO notes some of the figures for the Collier sales are incorrect], Collier's 2019 Form DR-493, 5 comparable sales map/back-up data, numerous article of retail sales/ ecommerce/etc., large aerial photo of the subject, and state-wide long roster of big box closings in recent years. [Note: The subject is not a big box store, nor does it contain any.] The PET seeks a value reduction to $4,748,748, based upon revisions he makes to his Income Approach. The PET's rent roll indicates only one vacancy, and an indicated vacancy rate of 7.9% (i.e. occupancy rate of 92.1%, as of December 31, 2018). In testimony, the PET tries to argue for functional obsolescence due to a parking problem associated with the subject. However, at the same time the PET just presented rent roll showing 92.1% occupancy (which is good, or at least normal). The PET refers to an aerial photograph and tries to count parking stalls, yet it was not possible to accurately count parking stalls from the aerial, due to trees and back portions of the building that also contain parking areas that are not visible. Apparently, the PET did not visit the subject to count parking stalls and did not review the subject's site plan. The PAO evidence provides a CoStar sheet that indicates the subject has 81 parking stalls. That equates to 1 stall per 318 SF of building area [based upon PET's rent roll showing a total of 25,750 SF], which is not terrible. However, a parking ratio of one stall per 250-300 SF would be more desirable for normal retail tenants. If catering to medical tenants even 2019-00185 Page 3 of 5 more parking is usually necessary. It is noted that the subject's rent roll includes a chiropractor/hand/foot clinic on the 2nd floor. The subject did [apparently] pass site plan approval when it was built in '92 with the 81 stalls. The PET fails to prove (or quantify) any functional obsolescence exists, particularly since the subject does have a respectable occupancy rate of 92. 1%. However, part of the owner's parking problem could be self- inflicted by accepting a medical tenant in the first place. If anything, the subject's reasonably high FAR of 38.9% denotes that parking could be approaching a problematic state. All of the PAO's sales have FAR's less than the subject's FAR. As a general rule of thumb for retail properties, FAR's between 20-25% are normal and usually result in ample on-site parking with sufficient on-site drainage. Thus, the subject reflects a property where the owner/landlord should be careful to not accept tenants (like medical users) that have high parking requirements. If so, the staggering of business hours is often a good idea so that evening/night users do not conflict with the parking needs of normal daytime tenants. THE PET INCLUDES A SALES COMPARISON APPROACH and includes evidence related to closings of 'big box' stores throughout the State of Florida. This is not particularly relevant to the subject, because the subject has no 'big box' spaces and the subject consists of only local tenants all under 7,000 SF. While there may be stress within the retail class of property due to e-commerce sales, the PET does not demonstrate how that has impacted Collier County or the subject. The PET includes a map showing 5 Collier County improved sales. However, the Sears transaction "C" was not a sale, nor was "E" (13100 Tamiami Trail East). That leaves the PET with 3 improved sales THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon historical revenue (EGI) of$561,326, NOI (without taxes deducted) of$46,941, and a [high] loaded cap rate of 10.34% (9.19% + 1 .15373 millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$4,748,748 [a figured revised by the PET at hearing & provided verbally]. RULING: 1.It is noted the subject's just value increased by 73.3% (i.e. $2,235,85) from 2018 to 2019. While it is understandable why the owner would be concerned about such a significant increase, that increase actually should have occurred in 2016, which would be the tax year following the September 2015 sale of the subject for $6.2M. It is possible the PET slightly overpaid at that time. It is noted from the PAO's building permit evidence the subject's former owner spent $128,270 for 3 permits in the first half of 2014 that could have enhanced the subject's appeal leading up to its 2015 contract & subsequent sales date in 2015. 2.The PET argues the PAO's 2 highest improved sales (per SF) are much newer buildings and the average without those two sales is lower (i.e. $205.15/SF of building area.) That argument appears to be valid, and it distorts the average upward. It is noted that both the PAO & the PET use the $120/SF sale at 15495 Tamiami Trail North, which is not excessively far from the subject. I give weight to a revised PAO Sales Comparison Approach using the average $/SF indicator of PAO's sales 3, 7, 8, & 9, which is $207.12/ SF X 85% COS X 26,930 SF = $4,740,966. [This will be reconciled with the following two items.] 2019-00185 Page 4 of 5 3. The PAO's land value estimate appears aggressive, given the `residual' land value indicator from the subject's prior 2015 sale is included. The average of the 5 "true" land sales without residual #6 is $43.78/SF of land. Given two of those sales closed back in 2016 & 2017, I rounded the average up to $45/SF and kept all other PAO Cost Approach inputs the same. The result is $5,622,557, less 15% COS = $4,779,173. [This will be reconciled with the following two items.] 4. For the Income Approach, the PAO & PET each have inputs worthy of stronger consideration. I give weight to the PET's NOI of$446,941 (which is $22,794 more than the PAO's projected NOI). The PAO's loaded OAR of 8.0% is much more in line with normal cap rate expectations. The resulting value from those two figures is $5586,763, less 15% COS = $4,478,700. 5. As is evident, the 3 reconstructed value indicators from the 3 approaches is very tight. The average of the three is $4,756,000 (rounded), which is given primary consideration in this ruling. It is noted this is still a very substantial increase of$1,705,981 from the 2018 just value, or an increase of 55.9%. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. It is recommended the PAO's just value assessment be reduced to $4,756,000, which happens to be 76.7% of the prior purchase price of the subject in 2015. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00185: 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. 2019-00185 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. s Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00186 Parcel ID 12982160001 Petitioner name GILLESPIE, ARCHER Property 555 KETCH DR The petitioner is: J taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,017,431.00 1,017,431.00 1,017,431.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,017,431.00 1,017,431.00 1,017,431.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,017,431.00 1,017,431.00 1,017,431.00 4All 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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/02/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00186 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00186: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and the Petitioner Mr. Gillespie. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and petitioner were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of$1,017,431. 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 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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 sales in the community. The petitioner provided evidence of a sale in 2019 which is not relevant to the market date of 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 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 2019-00186 Page 2 of 4 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 54- 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00186: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. 2019-00186 Page 3 of 4 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$1,017,431 is presumed correct. 2019-00186 Page 4 of 4 Ft DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01!17 The actions below were taken on your petition. EI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00187 Parcel ID 13034840003 Petitioner name ARCHER C GILLESPIE REVOC TRUST Property 777 ANCHOR RODE DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address 0 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34103 Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition J Granted your petition ❑ 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 Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 889,869.00 889,869.00 1,015,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 502,335.00 502,335.00 502,335.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,*required 452,335.00 452,335.00 452,335.00 *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) [.7� Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 01/29/2020 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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/axiap ❑ 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 2019-00187 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00187: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner's representative's Mr. Gillespie. 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$889,869. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 777 Anchor Rode Drive, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje reiterated the 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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. PET provided evidence which he supported with market data. 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 (Ha. 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. 2019-00187 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 54- 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 that the property was under valued is credible did support and overcame the burden pf 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. (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 2019-00187: 2019-00187 Page 3 of 4 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 petitioner's evidence prevailed by a preponderance of evidence. 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. PAO's value is incorrect. SM recommends the petition be granted with a revised new just value of$1,015,000. 2019-00187 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00188 Parcel ID 34840480005 Petitioner name EY LLP (JASON BUTTERWORTH) Property 1671 AIRPORT RDS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 768,825.00 768,825.00 768,825.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 563,805.00 563,805.00 563,805.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 563,805.00 563,805.00 563,805.00 *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) �7 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/09/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/09/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00188 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00188: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Ernst and Young, LLP.) was represented by Jason Butterworth (real estate broker). HEARING PETITION NUMBERS: TP-188 [parking & drainage], 190 [main store with parking], 191 [parking] are being heard together, as they are 3 different folios that are part of the same operating property (Home Depot). The combined just value of all 3 petitions is $10,888,856 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Home Depot built in 2000. The subject's address is 1651-1671 Airport-Pulling Road in Naples. The adjusted building area is 110,800 SF situated upon a site of 538,453 SF (i.e. 12.36 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The petitions #188 and #191 last sold on in 2003 for $2,150,000, and petition #190 sold in 2000 for $6M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,888,856, or $98.00/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, location map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior/interior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to big box retail cap rates and expenses from various sources. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $1,935,419 of impact fees for a total of$12,704,479. The total just value is 85.7% of the that figure). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators, yet only 2019-00188 Page 2 of 6 #6, #9, and #10 are true land sales, while the remaining 7 are `residual' indicators given less weight. #6 ($22.84/SF) is extremely close to the subject, yet it is a smaller site for a Porsche car dealership of 99,820 SF. #9 was a $17. 18/SF sale of a reasonably large parcel of 494,842 SF in early 2016, so some upward time (inflation) consideration is warranted. #10 is a Mercedes dealership site of 339,768 SF that closed in mid-2014 for $22.49/SF. Again, some upward time consideration is warranted. The PAO verbally mentions a 148,000 SF site that closed in March 2019 for $40.38/SF in North Naples for a car dealership. It was not included in his written presentation, but a meeting of the minds had been made by the 1/1/2019 assessment date & is worthy of consideration. Giving consideration for the subject's larger site size, the PAO's land value at $20/SF appears within reason. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Airport Road and Davis Boulevard (and with access points on both arteries). 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 ($6,280,097) & site improvements/paving at $754,735, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$19,739,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.49/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #1 ($212.52/SF) with a building size of 30,585 SF and Sale#7 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Those two sales are fee simple transactions. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 110,800 SF = $16,620,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$842,080 for a value indication of$11,228,000, or $101.34/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. In fact, the total assessment of$10,888,856 equals 85.7% of the land value + impact fees even though there is a substantial structure in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provided a cover sheet (requesting a value of$7.5M), 3 hearing notices, subject photos, 3 subject breakdowns from the PAO's website, Income Approach, the Boulder Group's net least big box repot [Note: the non- investment grade average price/SF is reported at $141], Realty Rates Investor Survey for the 1st Quarter 2019, roster of 8 large box leases (various non-Collier counties in Florida with back-up information), Sales Comparison Approach (roster of 9 properties with CoStar back-up for each), a variety of big box articles, DOR's Bulletin PTO 11-01, agent authorization form, and Collier's Form DR-493 for 2019. The PET provides a Sales Comparison Approach (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 an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.00/SF, 5% vacancy, 5% management, 5% reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$8,841,840 (before any COS deduction), then $7.5M (rounded) 2019-00188 Page 3 of 6 after making the 15% COS deduction. PET's COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes 9 improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County and only one in neighboring Lee County (also used by the PAO). 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. The PET does provide an average, mean, minimum, and maximum from the 9 sales. All of the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO's assessment, but 3 of the 9 sales were built in the 1970's, while the subject was built in 2000. Many of the sales selected by the PET have a variety of problems when it comes to comparability, as follows: -There are no sales from Collier County. -Sale #2 at the extreme northern border of Boca Raton is incorrectly reported to have 58,984 SF, when its CoStar information indicates it has 29,474 SF. That means its $/SF indicator is actually $176/SF, not $88.21/SF. Furthermore, that property also sold in December 2018 for slightly over $4.8M, or $163/SF. The PET should normally be using the most recent sale leading up to the assessment date. That dramatically higher $/SF indicator alters the statistics derived from those sales and this one sale makes the subject's assessment appear more reasonable. -Sale #4 is multi-tenant leased fee sale (and it is not in Fort Lauderdale. It is in Davie.) -Sale #5 was purchased with the intent to convert it to multi-tenant use, per CoStar. -Sale #6 (Kmart) was a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #7 (Sam's) was also a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #8 was a vacant 2016 sale of a building constructed in 1970. While fee simple, it is located in a quasi-industrial area along Powerline Road, not necessarily a clean commercial area more similar to the subject's location. -Sale #9 (Home Depot in Lee County) has an incorrectly reported size and $/SF indictor. The actual price per square foot is $63.48, per the PAO's correction of the PET at the hearing. In summary of the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, it is not considered very reliable for the purposes of this hearing. Any petitioner can search throughout the other 66 counties in Florida looking for distressed and/or low sales. The land values can be dramatically different in many of those areas, the building (in many cases as shown) are much older, and the effective buying power of the surrounding areas varies considerably with Collier County and the subject's location. Therefore, I give very little weight to the PET's sales presented. RULING: The PET's Sales Comparison Approach is given little weight, and the PET's Income presentation is extremely weak by virtue of having no data from Collier (or even Lee) County. PET's lease comp #1 is based upon a lease signed in 2014 in North Miami Beach; thus, it is outdated and not necessarily reflective of Collier County. The use of leases (of unknown dates) in Orlando, Palm Coast, Tampa, Panama City, Altamonte Springs, and Tallahassee does not have much relevance to Collier County. Projecting 5% management expense for a triple net lease, as done in the PET's Income Approach also 2019-00188 Page 4 of 6 does not make sense. There is very little to `manage' in such a situation. Thus, major inputs to the PET's Income Approach are questionable, which undermines the value conclusion. The PET fails to attempt any form of Cost Approach. Therefore, the PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed [F.S. 193.011 (2)]. The PAO does provide a Cost Approach and does demonstrate land value support and impact fees (that run with the land). This forms the basis (or foundation) of market value. Any income to the property first has to satisfy the land, but it may not even be enough to service the full land value in a given situation. The PAO's market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined) equate to 116.7% of the total assessment, there still remains some degree of value contribution associated with the 110,800 SF structure. The PAO does provide two fee simple building sales in Collier County (i.e. PAO's sales #1 & #7). Both exceed $200/SF, yet both those buildings are a lot smaller than the subject's building. However, the subject's just value being contested is only $98.27/SF, which is less than half either of those sales price indicators. The PAO's Income Approach could use better support for its income and expense inputs. Anchor rents in the PAO's evidence are weak when supporting rent of$10/SF for such a large space of 110,800 SF. Overall, the PAO's Cost Approach (especially land value + impact fees) are good support of the assessment. The majority of the PAO's improved sales are also supportive, but especially the fee simple sales. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach is given secondary weight, but it would have been desirable to have larger fee simple big box sales from the local area. In conclusion, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00188: 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 2019-00188 Page 5 of 6 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. 2019-00188 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR01$/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00189 Parcel ID 50910000069 Petitioner name EY LLP (JASON BUTTERWORTH) Property 2251 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12,201,117.00 12,201,117.00 12,201,117.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,379,004.00 10,379,004.00 10,379,004.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,379,004.00 10,379,004.00 10,379,004.00 *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) • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/09/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/09/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ 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 2019-00189 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00189: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Ernst and Young, LLP.) was represented by Jason Butterworth (real estate broker). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Home Depot built in 1991. The subject's address is 2251 Pine Ridge Road in Naples, which is at the NE corner of Naples Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road. The adjusted building area is 121,800 SF situated upon a site of 699,806.80 SF (i.e. 16.07 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no sales in the past 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$12,201,117, or $100.17/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide 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, location map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior/interior building photographs, & photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales. Charts are also provided related to big box retail cap rates from various sources. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $2,095,895 of impact fees for a total of$16,092,031 (the total assessment is 75.8% of that figure). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators, yet only #9, and #10 are true land sales, while the remaining 8 are `residual' indicators given less weight. True Land Sale #9 ($17.18/SF in February 2016) is extremely close to the subject. It is a reasonably large parcel of 494,842 SF. Because it sold in early 2016 [almost 3 years prior to the assessment date], so some upward time (inflation) consideration is warranted. True Land Sale #10 is a Mercedes dealership site of 339,768 SF that closed in mid-2014 for $22.49/SF. Again, some upward time consideration is 2019-00189 Page 2 of 6 warranted. In the prior (but related) Home Depot petitions (TP-188/190/191) with this same petitioner, the PAO verbally mentions a 148,000 SF site that closed in March 2019 for $40.38/SF in North Naples for a car dealership. It was not included in his written presentation, but a meeting of the minds had been made by the 1/1/2019 assessment date & is worthy of mention. Giving consideration for the subject's larger site size, the PAO's land value at $20/SF appears within reason. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO applied 50% depreciation, then added the depreciated value of the improvements ($5,068,216) & site improvements/paving at $623,920, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$21,784,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment of$12,201,117. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.49/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #1 ($212.52/SF) with a building size of 30,585 SF and Sale#7 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Those two sales are fee simple transactions. Adjusting for building size, the PAO concludes $150/SF X 121,800 SF = $18,270,000 (before any COS consideration) for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$925,680 for a value indication of$12,342,000, or $101.00/SF (before any COS consideration). 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 total assessment of$12,201,117 equates to 75.8% of the PAO's land value + impact fees, even though there is a substantial building in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provided a cover sheet (requesting a value of$7.5M), 3 hearing notices, subject photos, 3 subject breakdowns from the PAO's website, Income Approach, the Boulder Group's net least big box repot [Note: the non- investment grade average price/SF is reported at $141], Realty Rates Investor Survey for the 1st Quarter 2019, roster of 8 large box leases (various non-Collier counties in Florida with back-up information), Sales Comparison Approach (roster of 9 properties with CoStar back-up for each), a variety of big box articles, DOR's Bulletin PTO 11-01, agent authorization form, and Collier's Form DR-493 for 2019. The PET provides 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 notes a large jump in the subject's just value from $77/SF (in 2018) to $100/SF (in 2019). The PET includes an Income Approach [he gives most weight] for the subject based upon $7.00/SF, 5% vacancy, 5% management, 5% reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$9,567,222 (before any COS deduction), then $8.1M (rounded) after making the 15% COS deduction. It is noted that the PET uses a `rentable' area of 119,890 SF, which is 1,910 SF less than the PAO uses in his Income Approach. Due to rounding & the substantial difference in the value conclusions between 2019-00189 Page 3 of 6 the parties to the hearing, the relatively small difference in rentable areas is not significant to this ruling. PET's COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes 9 improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County and only one in neighboring Lee County (also used by the PAO as his Sale #5). 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. The PET does provide an average, mean, minimum, and maximum from the 9 sales. All of the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO's assessment, but 3 of the 9 sales were built in the 1970's, while the subject was built in 1991. Many of the sales selected by the PET have a variety of problems when it comes to comparability, as follows: -There are no sales from Collier County. -Sale #2 at the extreme northern border of Boca Raton is incorrectly reported to have 58,984 SF, when its CoStar information indicates it has 29,474 SF. That means its $/SF indicator is actually $176/SF, not $88.21/SF. Furthermore, that property also sold in December 2018 for slightly over $4.8M, or $163/SF. The PET should normally be using the most recent sale leading up to the assessment date. That dramatically higher $/SF indicator alters the statistics derived from those sales and this one sale makes the subject's assessment appear more reasonable. -Sale #4 is multi-tenant leased fee sale (and it is not in Fort Lauderdale. It is in Davie.) -Sale #5 was purchased with the intent to convert it to multi-tenant use, per CoStar. -Sale #6 (Kmart) was a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #7 (Sam's) was also a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #8 was a vacant 2016 sale of a building constructed in 1970. While fee simple, it is located in a quasi-industrial area along Powerline Road, not necessarily a clean commercial area more similar to the subject's location. -Sale #9 (Home Depot in Lee County) has an incorrectly reported size and $/SF indictor. The actual price per square foot is $63.48, per the PAO's correction of the PET at the hearing. In summary of the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, it is not considered very reliable for the purposes of this hearing. Any petitioner can search throughout the other 66 counties in Florida looking for distressed and/or low sales. The land values can be dramatically different in many of those areas, the building (in many cases as shown) are much older, and the effective buying power of the surrounding areas varies considerably with Collier County and the subject's location. Therefore, I give very little weight to the PET's sales presented. RULING: The PET's Sales Comparison Approach is given little weight, and the PET's Income presentation is extremely weak by virtue of having no data from Collier (or even Lee) County. PET's lease comp #1 is based upon a lease signed in 2014 in North Miami Beach; thus, it is outdated and not necessarily reflective of Collier County. The use of leases (of unknown dates) in Orlando, Palm Coast, Tampa, Panama City, Altamonte Springs, and Tallahassee does not have much relevance to Collier County. Projecting 5% 2019-00189 Page 4 of 6 management expense for a triple net lease, as done in the PET's Income Approach also does not make sense. There is very little to `manage' in such a situation for a big box user. Thus, major inputs to the PET's Income Approach are questionable, which undermines the value conclusion. The PET fails to attempt any form of Cost Approach. Therefore, the PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed [F.S. 193.011 (2)]. The PET's requested value of $8.1M is approximately half of the PAO's estimated value of$16.092M for the land + impact fees. It makes no sense to argue for a value so far below the land value + impact fees. The PAO does provide a Cost Approach and does demonstrate land value support and impact fees (that run with the land). This forms the basis (or foundation) of market value. Any income to the property first has to satisfy the land, but it may not even be enough to service the full land value in a given situation. The total assessment of$12,201,117 equates to 75.8% of the PAO's land value + impact fees, even though there is a substantial building in place. There still remains some degree of value contribution associated with the 121,800 SF structure. The PAO does provide two fee simple building sales in Collier County (i.e. PAO's sales #1 & #7). Both exceed $200/SF, yet both those buildings are a lot smaller than the subject's building. However, the subject's just value being contested is only $100.17/SF, which is less than half either of those sales price indicators. The PAO's Income Approach could use better support for its income and expense inputs. Anchor rents in the PAO's evidence are weak when supporting rent of $10/SF for such a large space of 121,800 SF. Overall, the PAO's Cost Approach (especially land value + impact fees) are good support of the assessment [and H&BU]. The majority of the PAO's improved sales are also supportive, but especially the fee simple sales (which are not impacted by leases in place). The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach is given secondary weight, but it would have been desirable to have larger fee simple big box sales from the local area. In conclusion, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00189: 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 2019-00189 Page 5 of 6 (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. 2019-00189 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ,Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00190 Parcel ID 00390680004 Petitioner name EY LLP (JASON BUTTERWORTH) Property 1651 AIRPORT RDS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 8,919,953.00 8,919,953.00 8,919,953.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,000,143.00 8,000,143.00 8,000,143.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,000,143.00 8,000,143.00 8,000,143.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/09/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/09/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ 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 2019-00190 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00190: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Ernst and Young, LLP.) was represented by Jason Butterworth (real estate broker). HEARING PETITION NUMBERS: TP-188 [parking & drainage], 190 [main store with parking], 191 [parking] are being heard together, as they are 3 different folios that are part of the same operating property (Home Depot). The combined just value of all 3 petitions is $10,888,856 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Home Depot built in 2000. The subject's address is 1651-1671 Airport-Pulling Road in Naples. The adjusted building area is 110,800 SF situated upon a site of 538,453 SF (i.e. 12.36 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The petitions #188 and #191 last sold on in 2003 for $2,150,000, and petition #190 sold in 2000 for $6M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,888,856, or $98.00/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, location map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior/interior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to big box retail cap rates and expenses from various sources. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $1,935,419 of impact fees for a total of$12,704,479. The total just value is 85.7% of the that figure). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators, yet only 2019-00190 Page 2 of 6 #6, #9, and #10 are true land sales, while the remaining 7 are `residual' indicators given less weight. #6 ($22.84/SF) is extremely close to the subject, yet it is a smaller site for a Porsche car dealership of 99,820 SF. #9 was a $17.18/SF sale of a reasonably large parcel of 494,842 SF in early 2016, so some upward time (inflation) consideration is warranted. #10 is a Mercedes dealership site of 339,768 SF that closed in mid-2014 for $22.49/SF. Again, some upward time consideration is warranted. The PAO verbally mentions a 148,000 SF site that closed in March 2019 for $40.38/SF in North Naples for a car dealership. It was not included in his written presentation, but a meeting of the minds had been made by the 1/1/2019 assessment date & is worthy of consideration. Giving consideration for the subject's larger site size, the PAO's land value at $20/SF appears within reason. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Airport Road and Davis Boulevard (and with access points on both arteries). 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 ($6,280,097) & site improvements/paving at $754,735, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$19,739,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.49/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #1 ($212.52/SF) with a building size of 30,585 SF and Sale#7 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Those two sales are fee simple transactions. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 110,800 SF = $16,620,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$842,080 for a value indication of $11 ,228,000, or $101.34/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. In fact, the total assessment of$10,888,856 equals 85.7% of the land value + impact fees even though there is a substantial structure in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provided a cover sheet (requesting a value of$7.5M), 3 hearing notices, subject photos, 3 subject breakdowns from the PAO's website, Income Approach, the Boulder Group's net least big box repot [Note: the non- investment grade average price/SF is reported at $141], Realty Rates Investor Survey for the 1st Quarter 2019, roster of 8 large box leases (various non-Collier counties in Florida with back-up information), Sales Comparison Approach (roster of 9 properties with CoStar back-up for each), a variety of big box articles, DOR's Bulletin PTO 11-01, agent authorization form, and Collier's Form DR-493 for 2019. The PET provides a Sales Comparison Approach (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 an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.00/SF, 5% vacancy, 5% management, 5% reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$8,841,840 (before any COS deduction), then $7.5M (rounded) 2019-00190 Page 3 of 6 after making the 15% COS deduction. PET's COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes 9 improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County and only one in neighboring Lee County (also used by the PAO). 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. The PET does provide an average, mean, minimum, and maximum from the 9 sales. All of the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO's assessment, but 3 of the 9 sales were built in the 1970's, while the subject was built in 2000. Many of the sales selected by the PET have a variety of problems when it comes to comparability, as follows: -There are no sales from Collier County. -Sale #2 at the extreme northern border of Boca Raton is incorrectly reported to have 58,984 SF, when its CoStar information indicates it has 29,474 SF. That means its $/SF indicator is actually $176/SF, not $88.21/SF. Furthermore, that property also sold in December 2018 for slightly over $4.8M, or $163/SF. The PET should normally be using the most recent sale leading up to the assessment date. That dramatically higher $/SF indicator alters the statistics derived from those sales and this one sale makes the subject's assessment appear more reasonable. -Sale #4 is multi-tenant leased fee sale (and it is not in Fort Lauderdale. It is in Davie.) -Sale #5 was purchased with the intent to convert it to multi-tenant use, per CoStar. -Sale #6 (Kmart) was a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #7 (Sam's) was also a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #8 was a vacant 2016 sale of a building constructed in 1970. While fee simple, it is located in a quasi-industrial area along Powerline Road, not necessarily a clean commercial area more similar to the subject's location. -Sale #9 (Home Depot in Lee County) has an incorrectly reported size and $/SF indictor. The actual price per square foot is $63.48, per the PAO's correction of the PET at the hearing. In summary of the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, it is not considered very reliable for the purposes of this hearing. Any petitioner can search throughout the other 66 counties in Florida looking for distressed and/or low sales. The land values can be dramatically different in many of those areas, the building (in many cases as shown) are much older, and the effective buying power of the surrounding areas varies considerably with Collier County and the subject's location. Therefore, I give very little weight to the PET's sales presented. RULING: The PET's Sales Comparison Approach is given little weight, and the PET's Income presentation is extremely weak by virtue of having no data from Collier (or even Lee) County. PET's lease comp #1 is based upon a lease signed in 2014 in North Miami Beach; thus, it is outdated and not necessarily reflective of Collier County. The use of leases (of unknown dates) in Orlando, Palm Coast, Tampa, Panama City, Altamonte Springs, and Tallahassee does not have much relevance to Collier County. Projecting 5% management expense for a triple net lease, as done in the PET's Income Approach also 2019-00190 Page 4 of 6 does not make sense. There is very little to `manage' in such a situation. Thus, major inputs to the PET's Income Approach are questionable, which undermines the value conclusion. The PET fails to attempt any form of Cost Approach. Therefore, the PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed [F.S. 193.011 (2)]. The PAO does provide a Cost Approach and does demonstrate land value support and impact fees (that run with the land). This forms the basis (or foundation) of market value. Any income to the property first has to satisfy the land, but it may not even be enough to service the full land value in a given situation. The PAO's market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined) equate to 116.7% of the total assessment, there still remains some degree of value contribution associated with the 110,800 SF structure. The PAO does provide two fee simple building sales in Collier County (i.e. PAO's sales #1 & #7). Both exceed $200/SF, yet both those buildings are a lot smaller than the subject's building. However, the subject's just value being contested is only $98.27/SF, which is less than half either of those sales price indicators. The PAO's Income Approach could use better support for its income and expense inputs. Anchor rents in the PAO's evidence are weak when supporting rent of$10/SF for such a large space of 110,800 SF. Overall, the PAO's Cost Approach (especially land value + impact fees) are good support of the assessment. The majority of the PAO's improved sales are also supportive, but especially the fee simple sales. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach is given secondary weight, but it would have been desirable to have larger fee simple big box sales from the local area. In conclusion, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00190: 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 2019-00190 Page 5 of 6 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. 2019-00190 Page 6 of 6 111 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑/ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00191 Parcel ID 00391562105 Petitioner name EY LLP (JASON BUTTERWORTH) Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record WI taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,200,078.00 1,200,078.00 1,200,078.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,066,852.00 1,066,852.00 1,066,852.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,066,852.00 1,066,852.00 1,066,852.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/09/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/09/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00191 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00191: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Ernst and Young, LLP.) was represented by Jason Butterworth (real estate broker). HEARING PETITION NUMBERS: TP-188 [parking & drainage], 190 [main store with parking], 191 [parking] are being heard together, as they are 3 different folios that are part of the same operating property (Home Depot). The combined just value of all 3 petitions is $10,888,856 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Home Depot built in 2000. The subject's address is 1651-1671 Airport-Pulling Road in Naples. The adjusted building area is 110,800 SF situated upon a site of 538,453 SF (i.e. 12.36 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The petitions #188 and #191 last sold on in 2003 for $2,150,000, and petition #190 sold in 2000 for $6M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,888,856, or $98.00/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, location map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior/interior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to big box retail cap rates and expenses from various sources. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $1,935,419 of impact fees for a total of$12,704,479. The total just value is 85.7% of the that figure). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators, yet only 2019-00191 Page 2 of 6 #6, #9, and #10 are true land sales, while the remaining 7 are `residual' indicators given less weight. #6 ($22.84/SF) is extremely close to the subject, yet it is a smaller site for a Porsche car dealership of 99,820 SF. #9 was a $17.18/SF sale of a reasonably large parcel of 494,842 SF in early 2016, so some upward time (inflation) consideration is warranted. #10 is a Mercedes dealership site of 339,768 SF that closed in mid-2014 for $22.49/SF. Again, some upward time consideration is warranted. The PAO verbally mentions a 148,000 SF site that closed in March 2019 for $40.38/SF in North Naples for a car dealership. It was not included in his written presentation, but a meeting of the minds had been made by the 1/1/2019 assessment date & is worthy of consideration. Giving consideration for the subject's larger site size, the PAO's land value at $20/SF appears within reason. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Airport Road and Davis Boulevard (and with access points on both arteries). 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 ($6,280,097) & site improvements/paving at $754,735, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$19,739,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.49/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #1 ($212.52/SF) with a building size of 30,585 SF and Sale#7 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Those two sales are fee simple transactions. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 110,800 SF = $16,620,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$842,080 for a value indication of $11,228,000, or $101.34/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. In fact, the total assessment of$10,888,856 equals 85.7% of the land value + impact fees even though there is a substantial structure in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provided a cover sheet (requesting a value of$7.5M), 3 hearing notices, subject photos, 3 subject breakdowns from the PAO's website, Income Approach, the Boulder Group's net least big box repot [Note: the non- investment grade average price/SF is reported at $141], Realty Rates Investor Survey for the 1st Quarter 2019, roster of 8 large box leases (various non-Collier counties in Florida with back-up information), Sales Comparison Approach (roster of 9 properties with CoStar back-up for each), a variety of big box articles, DOR's Bulletin PTO 11-01, agent authorization form, and Collier's Form DR-493 for 2019. The PET provides a Sales Comparison Approach (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 an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.00/SF, 5% vacancy, 5% management, 5% reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$8,841,840 (before any COS deduction), then $7.5M (rounded) 2019-00191 Page 3 of 6 after making the 15% COS deduction. PET's COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes 9 improved sales throughout the State of FL. There were no sales in Collier County and only one in neighboring Lee County (also used by the PAO). 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. The PET does provide an average, mean, minimum, and maximum from the 9 sales. All of the sales across the State selected by the PET result in $/SF figures less than the PAO's assessment, but 3 of the 9 sales were built in the 1970's, while the subject was built in 2000. Many of the sales selected by the PET have a variety of problems when it comes to comparability, as follows: -There are no sales from Collier County. -Sale #2 at the extreme northern border of Boca Raton is incorrectly reported to have 58,984 SF, when its CoStar information indicates it has 29,474 SF. That means its $/SF indicator is actually $176/SF, not $88.21/SF. Furthermore, that property also sold in December 2018 for slightly over $4.8M, or $163/SF. The PET should normally be using the most recent sale leading up to the assessment date. That dramatically higher $/SF indicator alters the statistics derived from those sales and this one sale makes the subject's assessment appear more reasonable. -Sale #4 is multi-tenant leased fee sale (and it is not in Fort Lauderdale. It is in Davie.) -Sale #5 was purchased with the intent to convert it to multi-tenant use, per CoStar. -Sale #6 (Kmart) was a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #7 (Sam's) was also a leased fee sale on a NNN lease; thus, the price was affected by that lease. -Sale #8 was a vacant 2016 sale of a building constructed in 1970. While fee simple, it is located in a quasi-industrial area along Powerline Road, not necessarily a clean commercial area more similar to the subject's location. -Sale #9 (Home Depot in Lee County) has an incorrectly reported size and $/SF indictor. The actual price per square foot is $63.48, per the PAO's correction of the PET at the hearing. In summary of the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, it is not considered very reliable for the purposes of this hearing. Any petitioner can search throughout the other 66 counties in Florida looking for distressed and/or low sales. The land values can be dramatically different in many of those areas, the building (in many cases as shown) are much older, and the effective buying power of the surrounding areas varies considerably with Collier County and the subject's location. Therefore, I give very little weight to the PET's sales presented. RULING: The PET's Sales Comparison Approach is given little weight, and the PET's Income presentation is extremely weak by virtue of having no data from Collier (or even Lee) County. PET's lease comp #1 is based upon a lease signed in 2014 in North Miami Beach; thus, it is outdated and not necessarily reflective of Collier County. The use of leases (of unknown dates) in Orlando, Palm Coast, Tampa, Panama City, Altamonte Springs, and Tallahassee does not have much relevance to Collier County. Projecting 5% management expense for a triple net lease, as done in the PET's Income Approach also 2019-00191 Page 4 of 6 does not make sense. There is very little to `manage' in such a situation. Thus, major inputs to the PET's Income Approach are questionable, which undermines the value conclusion. The PET fails to attempt any form of Cost Approach. Therefore, the PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed [F.S. 193.011 (2)]. The PAO does provide a Cost Approach and does demonstrate land value support and impact fees (that run with the land). This forms the basis (or foundation) of market value. Any income to the property first has to satisfy the land, but it may not even be enough to service the full land value in a given situation. The PAO's market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined) equate to 116.7% of the total assessment, there still remains some degree of value contribution associated with the 110,800 SF structure. The PAO does provide two fee simple building sales in Collier County (i.e. PAO's sales #1 & #7). Both exceed $200/SF, yet both those buildings are a lot smaller than the subject's building. However, the subject's just value being contested is only $98.27/SF, which is less than half either of those sales price indicators. The PAO's Income Approach could use better support for its income and expense inputs. Anchor rents in the PAO's evidence are weak when supporting rent of$10/SF for such a large space of 110,800 SF. Overall, the PAO's Cost Approach (especially land value + impact fees) are good support of the assessment. The majority of the PAO's improved sales are also supportive, but especially the fee simple sales. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach is given secondary weight, but it would have been desirable to have larger fee simple big box sales from the local area. In conclusion, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00191: 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 2019-00191 Page 5 of 6 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. 2019-00191 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00192 Parcel ID 61560000042 Petitioner name EY LLP (JASON BUTTERWORTH) Property 5955 NAPLESBLVD The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presenteby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-99.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 9,509,936.00 9,509,936.00 8,167,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,076,286.00 8,076,286.00 8,076,286.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,076,286.00 8,076,286.00 8,076,286.00 *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) 171 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/09/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/09/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00192 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00192: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Ernst and Young, LLP.) was represented by Jason Butterworth (real estate broker). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Dick's Sporting Goods built in 2014. It is located in a `power center' known as Naples Centre Village (by CoStar), but also known as 'Pine Air Lakes'. The subject's address is 5955 Naples Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 51,048 SF situated upon a site of 301,000 SF (i.e. 6.91 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in 2016 for $10,655,800 as a leased fee transaction. The 2018 assessment equates to 89.2% 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 evidence submitted into evidence by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$9,509,936, or $186.29/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, location map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior/interior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to big box retail cap rates and expenses from various sources. The CoStar write-up related to the subject's prior sale in 2016 is also provided. In addition, the PAO provides documentation related to the subject's $8.804M building permit value in October 2014. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF, plus $936,016 of impact 2019-00192 Page 2 of 5 fees for a total of$8,461,016 (which is 89% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. The first 8 appear to be `residual' indicators; whereby, the assessed portion of improvement values are removed from the respective sales prices. The final 3 sales are actual site sales. Land Sale #9 ($40.14/SF) is the Aldi purchase of a site for a new store in mid-2016. Land Sale #10 ($17.18/SF) is very close to the subject and it was purchased in early 2016 for a car dealership. Land Sale #11 ($26.49/SF) is a mid-2014 sale for a Mercedes dealership in the north end of Collier County along Tamiami Trail. Some upward time consideration is likely warranted to these slightly older sales. The land value appears reasonably well supported. 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 ($5,407,897) & site improvements/paving at $505,405, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$14,374,000 to support the subject's assessment of$9,509,936 (before any COS consideration). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 7 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $114.61-$374.62/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to fee simple Sale #1 ($212.52/SF) with a building size of 30,585 SF and fee simple Sale#6 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. The PAO concludes $225/SF X 51,048 SF = $11,486,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). This approach is strong, due to two fee simple sales of a similar building size as the subject. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $15/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$581,947 for a value indication of$7,759,000, or $152.00/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO's justification for some inputs (especially market rent) is weak. 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 land value + impact fees equal 89.0% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a fairly modern building constructed in 2014 in place to add significantly more value. As stated, the two improved fee simple sales are also significant to this hearing, particularly since both are in Collier County. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The data submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject's evidence (56 pages plus a separate package of 3 pages of rebuttal evidence accepted at the hearing). The PET provided a cover page, copy of the hearing notice, TRIM notice, ground photographs of the subject, property appraiser tax roll aerial photograph, location map, close aerial of the power center & immediate neighbors, Income Approach, the Boulder Group's big box report [Note: the non-investment grade average price/SF is reported at $141 with an investment grade average of$176/SF], NNN big box market data, investor survey from Realtyrates.com, roster of 4 leases with back-up sheets (3 in Lee County & the Hobby Lobby lease in Collier County), 1 Collier County improved sales & 5 Lee County improved sales comps in a grid, improved sale map, CoStar back-up to improved sales, articles of support in assessing the value, and 2019-00192 Page 3 of 5 Form DR-493. The PET notes a significant 29.5%just value increase of$2,167,858 from 2018 to 2019. That was a major factor in filing this appeal. The PET provides comparable sales (not really an approach) in evidence. PET provides 1 Collier sale (Hobby Lobby @ $170/SF in mid-2017), and five Lee County sales during 2018 that range from $114.14 to $167.00 per square foot. With the removal of the low (outlier and apparently leased fee) sale, the remaining 5 have an unadjusted range of $156 to $170/SF before any COS consideration. [Note: The PAO also has the Hobby Lobby fee simple sale and has a slightly different value indicator of$169.85/SF, before COS consideration.] PET's sale #5 ($156.18/SF in Lee County) appears to be a multi- tenant leased fee sale, but it does not have a significant anchor shown in its roster of tenants. It does have some Lee County governmental offices, as well as a variety of other normal businesses. Overall, the PET's sales are fairly good representations of value, yet frequently Lee County sales tend to slightly lag prices attained in Collier County. The PET includes an Income Approach [he gives most weight] for the subject based upon $14.00/SF, 5% vacancy, 5% management, 5% reserves, and an unloaded cap rate of 7.25%. The PET concludes a value of$8,428,201 (before any COS deduction), then $7.164M (rounded) after the COS deduction. The PET shows reasonably good support for his rental rate projection ($14/SF NNN), yet 5% management expense appears excessive in this situation. The 7.25% (unloaded) OAR is also arguable, given a relatively new building constructed in 2014 in a power center environment. PET's REBUTTAL EVIDENCE: At the hearing, I accepted 3 pages of rebuttal evidence from the PET. Part of that evidence relates to the PET's reconstruction of the PAO's 7 improved sales by eliminating PAO's Sales #3 and #5 because they are both less than 20,000 SF. For the remaining 5 sales, the PET recalculates the mean ($188/SF), median ($209/SF) and reconciled Sales Comparison indication of$8,167,447, based upon the original logic used by the PAO. The PET's reconstructed value is based upon 85% X the mean of$188 X 51,048 SF, less 15% COS. Thus, the PET argues that the PAO's just value of$9,509,936 ($188.29/SF) is excessive using the PAO's most relevant sales when considering building sizes. Another part of the PET's rebuttal relates to the mathematics applied to a `residual' land value derived from the subject's prior April 2016 sale using the PAO's residual methodology. The PET derives a land value of $12.65/SF (without impact fees), but that also be a 2016 estimate without any potential escalations for inflation up to the 2019 assessment date. Regardless, I give primary weight to actual land sales. The PET is right to suggest that `residual' analysis methods could have some variability in the results provided. This is also why the PAO normally provides a long enough roster of residuals, many of which support the `actual' land sales, yet often several do not. To reiterate, I give primary weight to `actual' land sales when dealing with the land valuation, as it is important in establishing a baseline for value & H&BU. RULING: The PET does make some good points in this hearing. From all the data presented, the improved sales (of both the PAO & PET) of buildings over 20,000 SF are also worthy of strong consideration. Probably the best summary of what I can give weight to in this ruling is the PET's (rebuttal) summary of the PAO's sales presented 2019-00192 Page 4 of 5 with the removal of PAO's smaller sales #3 and #5. That exhibit results in a value of $8,167,500 (rounded) after considering the COS deduction. The $8,167,500 figure also is extremely close to the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees of$8,461,016, yet there were very few true land sales of the subject's size to consider. The PAO had a very close land sale #10 that sold for $17.18/SF, yet the PAO concludes $25/SF for the land value. While some appreciation is possible, there is less precision in the land value estimate as compared to the higher degree of correlation among improved sales of similar building size as the subject. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be reduced to $8,167,500 (rounded), or $160/SF of building area. It is noted that this ruling results in a reduction of$1,342,436 from the contested 2019 just value. However, this ruling of$8,167,500 does result in an increase over the 2018 assessment of$825,422, or an increase of 11.2%. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00192: 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. 2019-00192 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485 R.01/1 1 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. WI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00195 Parcel ID 30184120009 Petitioner name GRAZIANO, MARCO, MARIA LUDOVICA TEJ Property 33 GREY WING PT The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ei Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 491,196.00 491,196.00 491,196.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 395,761.00 395,761.00 395,761.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 395,761.00 395,761.00 395,761.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00195 Page 1 of 2 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00195: The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C.]. 2019-00195 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V � R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00201 Parcel ID 77211300108 Petitioner name FL STAR CONSTRUCTION LLC Property The petitioner is: El taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary I1 Denied your petition El Granted your petition El Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presenteby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9d.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 59,250.00 59,250.00 59,250.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 37,813.00 37,813.00 37,813.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 37,813.00 37,813.00 37,813.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/14/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00201 Page 1 of 1 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.01/ V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00202 Parcel ID 77211300001 Petitioner name FL STAR CONSTRUCTION LLC Property 194 2ND ST The petitioner is: 17I taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34113 other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ 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 59,250.00 59,250.00 59,250.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 37,813.00 37,813.00 37,813.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 37,813.00 37,813.00 37,813.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C.]. IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/14/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiau ❑ 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 2019-00202 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00202: Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. 2019-00202 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DRRo85 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00218 Parcel ID 00154560108 Petitioner name TEDDYS LAND JOINT VENTURE LLC, SM'j Property 13560 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address Elother, explain: NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,989,008.00 2,989,008.00 2,989,008.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,989,008.00 2,989,008.00 2,989,008.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,989,008.00 2,989,008.00 2,989,008.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/26/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ 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 2019-00218 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00218: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Frederick Grace, owner of the subject. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,989,008. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail center with four units. The building area is 17,628-sf. the land size is 81,457-sf or 1.87 acres. The building was built in 1999/20 years old with an effective age of 20 years. The property is located at 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 56 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site 2019-00218 Page 2 of 8 maps, subject location map, zoning map and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the subject deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, operating expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees for the property, and the subject property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. At the hearing, PAO provided 11 pages of evidence, as additional support for PAO's land sales. The additional information consists of an aerial with details of each land sale in PAO's report. All evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to March 2019. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 339,768-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits for some of the sales, ranges from $21.67 to $36.88/sf. The mean of all the sales is $30.03/sf and the median is $30.38/sf. Sales # 1, 8 and 9 are located near the subject; these sales sold from July 2014 to March 2019; and range in size from 90,000-sf to 339,768-sf; the sale price ranges from $24.11 to $30.38/sf. Sale # 1 closed in March 2019, but was negotiated before January 1, 2019. Sale # 1 is located in close proximity to the subject and PAO placed most emphasis on this sale. PAO reconciled a value at $30.00/sf x 81,457-sf or $2,444,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $1,057,741, impact fees at $239,474, and the land value is estimated at $2,443,710 for a total cost of $3,741,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 13 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2015 to July 2019; PAO included 3 sales (# 11 to # 13) that sold from April 2019 to July 2019 for trending purposes and did not place emphasis on these sales. The sales (# 1 to # 10) range in building size from 6,037-sf to 46,400-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 17,985-sf to 286,625-sf with a building to land ratio ranging from 6.8% to 33.6%, the subject has a ratio of 21.6%. The buildings were built from 1955 to 2017. The sales range from $117.08 to $416.67/sf of building area including land. These sales have a mean price of$237.95.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$221.00/sf of building area including land. 2019-00218 Page 3 of 8 The sales that occurred in 2019 range in size from 17,970-sf to 46,400-sf; the land size ranges from 71,268-sf to 326,700-sf with a building to land ratio of 14.6% to 25.2%. These three sales sold from $154.09 to $225.38/sf. Sale # 11 is a resale of Sale # 3 that sold in August 2018 for $120.16/sf and resold in August 2019 for $154.09/sf, an increase of 28.3%; the building size is 46,400-sf and land size of 286,625-sf. PAO reconciled a value at $190.00/sf of building area including land or $3,349,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys , dated 2018, for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Realty Rates, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar-all real estate survey companies and from Collier County confidential reports (information provided by property owners in Collier County). The rents range from $17.97 to $21 .23/ sf with a mean of$20.00/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf and a $5.00 common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00. The gross rent of$440,700. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies mentioned above. Vacancies for retail space range from 3.66% to 15.55% with a mean of 10%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $44,070. The effective gross income (EGI) is $396,630. PAO provided support for operating expenses from CoStar and confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to EGI) range from 27% to 42% with a mean of 30%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $118,989. The net operating income (NOI) is $277,641. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market surveys mentioned above. The cap rates range from 6.68% to 7.67% with a mean of 6.8%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.8% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8%. The NOI of$277,641 capitalized at 8% indicates a value of$3,471,000 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 2019-00218 Page 4 of 8 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-page report submitted. 2019-00218 Page 5 of 8 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. PET presented a report containing 79-pages which consisted of an email on evidence exchange, notice of hearing and an appraisal report on the subject prepared by Cushman & Wakefield, dated June 21, 2019. The appraisal contained a cover letter with photo of the subject, summary of salient facts and conclusion, aerial, photographs of the subject, scope of work, report option description, identification of the property, ownership and recent history of the subject, dates of inspection and valuation, intended use and users of the appraisal, location map of the subject, regional analysis, description of Collier County, retail market analysis„ site description, assessor's map, description of improvements with building layout, property assessment and taxes, zoning, highest and best use, Sales Comparison Approach with improved sales in chart form and location map of the sales, Income Approach with support for rents, vacancies, operating expenses and capitalization rates, reconciliation and final value, assumptions and limiting conditions and certification. The addenda contains glossary of terms and definitions, client satisfaction survey, comparable improved sales data sheets with photos and qualifications of the appraiser. At the hearing, PET presented additional evidence that consisted of 53 pages of lease ledgers. All of PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided seven improved sales located in Naples and Bonita Springs. The improved sales sold from February 2017 to April 2019. The sales range in building size from 15,300-sf to 32,400-sf. The buildings were built from 1990 to 2007. The unadjusted sales range from $153.59 to $226.42/sf of building area including land with an average of$197.35/sf. PET made adjustments to some of the sales for market increase, location, age and quality, exposure and visibility and access. The adjusted sales range from $152.18 to $220.79/sf with an average of $185.58/sf. PET shared sales # 1,5,6 and 7 with PAO; these adjusted sales range from $152.18 to $220.79/sf with an average of$185.20/sf. PET reconciled at $175.00/sf x 17,553-sf=$3,100,000 rounded. PAO used a building size of 17,628-sf. 2019-00218 Page 6 of 8 PET presents the Income Approach. PET provided the rent roll for the subject. The units range from 2,248-sf to 6,300-sf; the triple net rents range from $8.14/sf(larger space) to $21.93/sf(smaller space); leases expire from 3/21 to 3/23. Total annual rent from the leases is $233,770 or $13.32/sf PET provided a retail market survey of 7 rents in Naples and Bonita Springs, in close proximity to the subject. The unit sizes range from 1,546-sf to 6,995-sf; built from 1989 to 2007; the asking rents range from $12.00 to $16.50/sf with an average of$13.74/sf. PET used a base rent of$13.40/sf with an expense reimbursement of$6.44/sf for a total rent of$19.84/sf or a gross income of$348,179. PET provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from CoStar survey. Vacancies for retail space range 0% to 5%. PET used a vacancy rate of 5% or $17,409. The effective gross income (EGI) is $330,220. PET provided support for operating expenses based on the subject's operating expenses for the past 3 years. Total operating expenses have been estimated at $125,999 including real estate taxes, which represents 38.09% of EGI. The net operating income (NOI) is $204,771. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market surveys PWC, CoStar and RERC that range from 4% to 7.5%. Sales of retail centers in Naples have cap rates in the range of 7% to 7.6%. PET used a cap rate range of 6.75% to 7.75%. The NOI of$204,771 capitalized at rates ranging from 6.75% to 7.75% indicates a value range from $2,642,205 to $3,033,63.PET reconciled at $2,800,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PAO valued the subject on a fee simple basis with current market rents for assessment purposes and not on contract rents at the subject, some of which are older leases. PET's appraisal indicates the leased fee interest is being appraised based on current leases at the property. PAO indicated the date of value for PET's appraisal is 6/21/19, and not 1/1/19, which is the date PAO's value is based on. PAO indicated PET's Sales Comparison Approach indicates a value of$3,100,000, more in line with the current assessment. As rebuttal, PET indicated they are unable to achieve a market rent of$20.00/sf as indicated in PAO's income analysis. PET indicated some tenants are struggling to pay the current rent and are often late in paying the rent. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET provided good support for the current assessment based on the Sales Comparison Approach and the range in values provided in the Income Approach. 2019-00218 Page 7 of 8 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 2019-00218: 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 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. 2019-00218 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V e R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00221 Parcel ID 32931560001 Petitioner name SHAAR, DIANE Property 1055 FOREST LAKESDR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34105 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ 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 134,400.00 134,400.00 134,400.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 134,400.00 134,400.00 134,400.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 134,400.00 134,400.00 134,400.00 *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 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. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00221 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00221: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Donald R. Wegner. 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 $134,400. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2019-00221 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00225 Parcel ID 00390080002 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI Property 3451 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ID other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presenteby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9d.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 11,573,542.00 11,573,542.00 11,573,542.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,969,929.00 9,969,929.00 9,969,929.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,969,929.00 9,969,929.00 9,969,929.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/10/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/11/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00225 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00225: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Wal-Mart) was represented by Jerry Aucoin [an employee of the owner]. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Wal-Mart built in 1993. The subject's address is 3451 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. The adjusted building area is 126,837 SF situated upon a site of 749,632 SF (i.e. 17.21 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in 1992 for $6,923,650 as a land sale transaction. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$11,573,542, or $91 .25/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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 of the comparable sales, various charts related to 'big box' stores, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rates, impact fee calculations, and a Wal-Mart tenant overview article. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $2,727,357 of impact fees for a total of$17,719,997 (which is 153% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 17 commercial land sale indicators, with #1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 14, & 15 serving as `residual' indicators of the land. The true land sale indicators were 5, 6 7, 9-13 and 16-17. Given the subject's large site size, the land value could be aggressive, but the smaller sites in closer proximity to the subject do support $20. Two large sales (#16 & #17) also appear to be supportive of$20/SF; however, they are farther away from the subject. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along 2019-00225 Page 2 of 5 Tamiami Trail East. The subject is also located adjacent to the Collier County complex of governmental buildings. 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 ($4,974,007) & site improvements/paving at $451,070, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$23,145,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. [Note: Even using the subject's 1992 land sale of$6,923,650, the resulting Cost Approach conclusion would be over $15M, which is still dramatically more than the contested just value of$11,573,542.] In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sales #2, 3, 4 & 8 are in Lee County. All 8 sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.42/SF. The PAO gives most weight to fee simple Sale #1 ($212.52/SF), which was dark Toys R Us with a building size of 30,585 SF, and fee simple Sale#6 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Due to the subject's larger size, the PAO concludes $125/SF X 126,837 SF = $15,855,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). An attempt was made to avoid the leased fee sales, given the prices tend to be influenced by the lease terms. There was a BJ's Wholesale in Lee County (Sale #2) that was leased and was almost identical in size to the subject that sold for $207/SF. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to the NOI of$1,024,209 for a value indication of$13,656,000, or $107.67/SF (before any COS consideration). 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. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover/ summary page (requesting a value of$8,696,264), pro-forma Income Approach, various graphics regarding retail trend/store closings, definitions of real estate terms, roster of 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [only 1 sale was from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County], CoStar back-up sales comparable summary sheets, roster of 7 large retail leases throughout Florida [the Hobby Lobby lease for 55,000 SF @ $10/SF is the only Collier property], CoStar back-up related to those leases, a roster of 6 cap rate comps (6 Targets & 1 Wal-Mart) throughout Florida (1 is in Bonita Springs), and a 60-page Situs RERC report on the valuation of big box properties. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $8.00/SF, 10% vacancy, 7.22% expenses, and a very high unloaded cap rate of 9.75%. The PET concludes a value of$8,696,264 (before any COS deduction). It appears that the PET's inputs in this approach are extremely pessimistic. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [none are in Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach Counties]. There was only 1 sale from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Five of the properties closed after 1/1/2018. All the sales were either a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or a Target store. The prices ranged from $19.69/SF of building area to a high of$51.67/SF. The PET does not appear to conclude any value via 2019-00225 Page 3 of 5 `comparable sales' but does indicate a median of$32.88/SF and mean of$33.62/SF from these comps that date back to 2012. I give now weight to the PEI's sales, given half are outdated, most (if not all) appear heavily distressed, and they appear to come from areas with different demographic/buying power characteristics than in Collier County. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak, and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) to non-Collier market data. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed, which violates FS 193.011 [3]. This is a major problem with a location like the subject's, given it fronts Tamiami Trail North. Another problem is the PET's failure to adequately consider land value, which relates to H&BU (FS 193.011 [3]). In other words, the land value + impact fees (which run with the land) forms the baseline of value. For this petition, the PET is seeking a value of$8,696,264, which is less than the 1992 subject's site acquisition cost of$6,923,650 + the impact fees of$2,727,357 = $9,651,007. Given 27 years have passed (with market appreciation), the PET's argument for relief and data presented do not appear to reflect current (and local) market conditions or values. The PAO presents three credible approaches to value. The PAO even uses a $10/SF rental rate of Hobby Lobby, which is a rent provided in the PET's data. All 3 of the PAO's approaches support the assessment, even after 15% COS consideration is applied. While I understand many distressed big box examples exist in different parts of Florida, selecting specific low market indicators in (mostly) non-comparable market areas throughout the State of Florida and applying them to Collier County is not appropriate without much more localized supporting market evidence. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00225: 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 2019-00225 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00225 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00226 Parcel ID 00157481501 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record NAPLES, FLTAMI3 110 N � taxpayer's agent address FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑/ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 10,790,914.00 10,790,914.00 10,790,914.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,686,171.00 9,686,171.00 9,686,171.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,686,171.00 9,686,171.00 9,686,171.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/10/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/11/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiln ❑ 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 2019-00226 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00226: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Wal-Mart) was represented by Jerry Aucoin [an employee of the owner]. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Wal-Mart `super center' built in 1993. The PAO indicates the subject has an actual age of 26 years, but an effective age of 15 years given it had some major renovations 4-5 years ago (and added a liquor store to the structure). The subject's address is 11225 Tamiami Trail North in Naples. The subject wraps around the NW corner of Tamiami Trail North and Immokalee Road. The adjusted building area is 144,748 SF situated upon a site of 734,857 SF (i.e. 16.87 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in 1992 for $5,353,900 as a land sale transaction. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,790,914, or $74.55/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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 of the comparable sales, various charts related to 'big box' stores, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rates, impact fee calculations, and a Wal-Mart tenant overview article. Building permit information was also provided. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $3,074,860 of impact fees for a total of$17,772,000 (which is 165% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators. The first 6 are `residual' indictors given less weight, yet the last 4 are actual land sales given much 2019-00226 Page 2 of 5 more significance. Land Sale #10 was under contract on the assessment date at $30.38/ SF for a car dealership. It happens to be extremely close to the subject, yet a smaller site of 148,104 SF. Overall, the weight of Land Sales 7 — 10 tend to be supportive of the PAO's land value estimate of$20/SF. The subject does dual street along two busy streets. 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 ($7,885,344) & site improvements/paving at $591,494, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$26,249,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment of$10,790,914. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sales #2, 3, 4 & 8 are in Lee County. All 8 sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.42/SF. The PAO gives most weight to fee simple Sale #1 ($212.52/SF), which was dark Toys R Us with a building size of 30,585 SF, and fee simple Sale#6 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Due to the subject's larger size, the PAO concludes $125/SF X 144,748 SF = $18,094,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). An attempt was made to avoid the leased fee sales, given the prices tend to be influenced by the lease terms. There was a BJ's Wholesale in Lee County (Sale #2) that was leased and was similar in size to the subject that sold for $207/SF. There was one low fee simple sale of a Home Depot in Lee County, but it appears to be the outlier among all sales and is not in Collier County. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,168,840 for a value indication of$15,585,000, or $107.70/SF (before any COS consideration) . The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing via all 3 approaches. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 165% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a substantial building in place that had over $1M in renovations in 2016-17. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover/ summary page (requesting a value of$8,412,076), pro-forma Income Approach, various graphics regarding retail trend/store closings, definitions of real estate terms, roster of 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [only 1 sale was from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County], CoStar back-up sales comparable summary sheets, roster of 7 large retail leases throughout Florida [the Hobby Lobby lease for 55,000 SF @ $10/SF is the only Collier property], CoStar back-up related to those leases, a roster of 6 cap rate comps (6 Targets & 1 Wal-Mart) throughout Florida (1 is in Bonita Springs), and a 60-page Situs RERC report on the valuation of big box properties. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $6.00/SF, 10% vacancy, 7.22% expenses, and a very high unloaded cap rate of 9.75%. The PET concludes a value of$8,183,308 (before any COS deduction). It appears that the PET's inputs in this approach are extremely pessimistic. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 2019-00226 Page 3 of 5 to early 2019) throughout Florida [none are in Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach Counties]. There was only 1 sale from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Five of the properties closed after 1/1/2018. All the sales were either a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or a Target store. The prices ranged from $19.69/SF of building area to a high of$51.67/SF. The PET's cover sheet indicates a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$8,412,076 ($52.82/SF), but it is not clear how he got that figure from the sales presented. His chart does indicate a median of$32.88/SF and mean of$33.62/SF from these comps that date back to 2012. I give no weight to the PET's sales, given half are outdated, most (if not all) appear heavily distressed, and they appear to come from areas with different demographic/buying power characteristics than in Collier County. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak, and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) to non-Collier market data, which means the PET is not adequately considering location FS 193.011 [3]. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed, which violates FS 193.011 [2]. In other words, the land value + impact fees (which run with the land) forms the baseline of value. For this petition, the PET is seeking a value of$8,412,076, which is less than the 1992 subject's site acquisition cost of$5,353,900 + the impact fees of$3,074,860 = $8,428,760. Given 27 years have passed (with market appreciation and over $1M in renovations), the PET's argument for relief and data presented do not appear to reflect current (and local) market conditions or values. The PAO presents three credible approaches to value. The PAO even uses a $10/SF rental rate of Hobby Lobby, which is a rent provided in the PET's data. All 3 of the PAO's approaches support the assessment, even after 15% COS consideration is applied. While I understand many distressed big box examples exist in different parts of Florida, selecting specific low market indicators in (mostly) non-comparable market areas throughout the State of Florida and applying them to Collier County is not appropriate without much more localized supporting market evidence. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00226: 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 2019-00226 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00226 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00227 Parcel ID 81076000040 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI Property 6650 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34114 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1-1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 18,139,135.00 18,139,135.00 18,139,135.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,283,710.00 16,283,710.00 16,283,710.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,283,710.00 16,283,710.00 16,283,710.00 *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) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/10/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/11/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiee El 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 2019-00227 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00227: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Wal-Mart) was represented by Jerry Aucoin [an employee of the owner]. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Wal-Mart `super store' (with auto center) built in 2007. The subject's address is 6650 Collier Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 201,783 SF situated upon a site of 1,235,361.50 SF (i.e. 28.36 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no sales of the subject in the past 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$18,139,135, or $89.89/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, 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 of the comparable sales, various charts related to 'big box' stores, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rates, impact fee calculations, and a Wal-Mart tenant overview article. Building permit information was also provided. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $13/SF, plus $4,338,910 of impact fees for a total of$20,398,610 (which is 112.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Seven are `residual' indicators, while 4 are actual land sales, and #6 is a hotel site ($21.89/SF) close to the subject. The land value appears reasonable at $13/SF, given the subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Collier Boulevard. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as 2019-00227 Page 2 of 4 impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($12,396,448) & site improvements/paving at $1,403,930, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$34,199,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sales #2, 3, 4 & 8 are in Lee County. All 8 sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.42/SF. The PAO gives most weight to fee simple Sale #1 ($212.52/SF), which was dark Toys R Us with a building size of 30,585 SF, and fee simple Sale#6 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Due to the subject's larger size, the PAO concludes $125/SF X 201,783 SF = $25,223,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $9/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,466,458 for a value indication of$19,553,000, or $97.00/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. In fact, the land value + impact fees equal 112.5% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a substantial and large building in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover/ summary page (requesting a value of$15,026,255), pro-forma Income Approach, various graphics regarding retail trend/store closings, definitions of real estate terms, roster of 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [only 1 sale was from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County], CoStar back-up sales comparable summary sheets, roster of 7 large retail leases throughout Florida [the Hobby Lobby lease for 55,000 SF @ $10/SF is the only Collier property], CoStar back-up related to those leases, a roster of 6 cap rate comps (6 Targets & 1 Wal-Mart) throughout Florida (1 is in Bonita Springs), and a 60-page Sims RERC report on the valuation of big box properties. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.50/SF, 10% vacancy, 7.22% expenses, and very high unloaded cap rate of 9.00%. The PET concludes a value of$14,544,378 (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [none are in Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach Counties]. There was only 1 sale from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Five of the properties closed after 1/1/2018. All the sales were either a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or a Target store. The prices ranged from $19.69/SF of building area to a high of$51.67/SF. The PET's cover sheet indicates a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$15,026,255 ($71.89/SF), but it is not clear how he got that figure from the sales presented. His chart does indicate a median of$32.88/SF and mean of$33.62/SF from these comps that date back to 2012. I give no weight to the PET's sales, given half are outdated, most (if not all) appear heavily distressed, and they appear to come from areas with different demographic/buying power characteristics than in Collier County. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak, and the sales and rents are heavily 2019-00227 Page 3 of 4 weighted (almost exclusively) to non-Collier market data, which means the PET is not adequately considering location FS 193.011 [3]. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed, which violates FS 193.011 [2]. In other words, the land value + impact fees (which run with the land) forms the baseline of value. For this petition, the PET is seeking a value of$15,026,255, which is less than the PAO's estimated land value (not to mention the impact fees of$3,074,860 that 'run with the land') plus an existing building of 201,783 SF built 12 years ago. The PET's argument for relief and data presented do not appear to reflect current (and local) market conditions or values. The PAO presents three credible approaches to value. While I understand many distressed big box examples exist in different parts of Florida, selecting specific low market indicators in (mostly) non-comparable market areas throughout the State of Florida and applying them to Collier County is not appropriate without much more localized supporting market evidence. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00227: 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. 2019-00227 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. $ Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00228 Parcel ID 59712000488 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI Property 9885 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34114 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 15,699,647.00 15,699,647.00 15,699,647.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 15,699,647.00 15,699,647.00 15,699,647.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 15,699,647.00 15,699,647.00 15,699,647.00 *AII 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) 171 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/10/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/11/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00228 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00228: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Wal-Mart) was represented by Jerry Aucoin [an employee of the owner]. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Wal-Mart `super store' built in 2004. The subject's address is 9885 Collier Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 203,622 SF situated upon a site of 1,043,250 SF (i.e. 23.95 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no sales of the subject in the past 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$15,699,647, or $77.10/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, 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 of the comparable sales, various charts related to 'big box' stores, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rates, impact fee calculations, and a Wal-Mart tenant overview article. Building permit information was also provided. Over $1M was spent re-roofing the subject in the 2016-17 time frame. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $13/SF, plus $4,378,453 of impact fees for a total of$17,940,703 (which is 114.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Seven are `residual' indicators, while 4 are actual land sales. The land value appears reasonable at $13/SF, given the subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Collier Boulevard. Land Sales 9, 10, & 11 are given the most weight, as they are all fairly large 2019-00228 Page 2 of 4 sites that each sold for more than $12/SF, and consideration is given to mild appreciation since they sold in the 2014-16 time frame. 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 ($11,000,226) & site improvements/paving at $1,378,887, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$30,320,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sales #2, 3, 4 & 8 are in Lee County. All 8 sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.42/SF. The PAO gives most weight to fee simple Sale #1 ($212.52/SF), which was dark Toys R Us with a building size of 30,585 SF, and fee simple Sale#6 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Due to the subject's larger size, the PAO concludes $125/SF X 203,622 SF = $25,453,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $9/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,479,823 for a value indication of$19,731,000, or $97.00/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. In fact, the land value + impact fees equal 114.3% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a substantial and large building in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover/ summary page (requesting a value of$11,764,076), pro-forma Income Approach, various graphics regarding retail trend/store closings, definitions of real estate terms, roster of 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [only 1 sale was from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County], CoStar back-up sales comparable summary sheets, roster of 7 large retail leases throughout Florida [the Hobby Lobby lease for 55,000 SF @ $10/SF is the only Collier property], CoStar back-up related to those leases, a roster of 6 cap rate comps (6 Targets & 1 Wal-Mart) throughout Florida (1 is in Bonita Springs), and a 60-page Situs RERC report on the valuation of big box properties. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.00/SF, 10% vacancy, 7.22% expenses, and a very high unloaded cap rate of 9.25%. The PET concludes a value of$13,077,571 (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [none are in Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach Counties]. There was only 1 sale from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Five of the properties closed after 1/1/2018. All the sales were either a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or a Target store. The prices ranged from $19.69/SF of building area to a high of$51.67/SF. The PET's cover sheet indicates a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$11,764,076 ($56.84/SF), but it is not clear how he got that figure from the sales presented. His chart does indicate a median of$32.88/SF and mean of$33.62/SF from these comps that date back to 2012. I give no weight to the PET's sales, given half are outdated, most (if not all) appear heavily distressed, and they 2019-00228 Page 3 of 4 appear to come from areas with different demographic/buying power characteristics than in Collier County. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak, and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) to non-Collier market data, which means the PET is not adequately considering location FS 193.011 [3]. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed, which violates FS 193.011 [2]. In other words, the land value + impact fees (which run with the land) forms the baseline of value. For this petition, the PET is seeking a value of$11,764,076, which is less than the PAO's estimated land value (not to mention the impact fees of$4,378,453 that 'run with the land') plus an existing building of 203,622 SF built 15 years ago. The PET's argument for relief and data presented do not appear to reflect current (and local) market conditions or values. The PAO presents three credible approaches to value. While I understand many distressed big box examples exist in different parts of Florida, selecting specific low market indicators in (mostly) non-comparable market areas throughout the State of Florida and applying them to Collier County is not appropriate without much more localized supporting market evidence. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00228: 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. 2019-00228 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 018/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00229 Parcel ID 00199283000 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI Property 5420 JULIETBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 20,110,273.00 20,110,273.00 20,110,273.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 18,469,000.00 18,469,000.00 18,469,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 18,469,000.00 18,469,000.00 18,469,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/10/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/11/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axivi ❑ 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 2019-00229 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00229: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Wal-Mart) was represented by Jerry Aucoin [an employee of the owner]. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a `super store' built in 2005. The subject's address is 5420 Juliet Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 209,373 SF situated upon a site of 1,034,910 SF (i.e. 23.76 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2004 for $12,500,000 as a land sale. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$20,110,273, or $96.005/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, 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 of the comparable sales, various charts related to 'big box' stores, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rates, impact fee calculations, and a Wal-Mart tenant overview article. Building permit information was also provided. Over $1.6M was in construction costs at the subject in the 2017-18 time frame. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $18/SF, plus $4,447,679 of impact fees for a total of$23,077,420+ (which is 114.8% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 12 commercial land sale indicators. Six were residual indicators given less weight, while six (#3, 7, 10, 11, & 12) were actual land sales. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Immokalee Road and Juliet Boulevard. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as 2019-00229 Page 2 of 4 impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($11,767,506) & site improvements/paving at $1,517,887, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$36,363,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sales #2, 3, 4 & 8 are in Lee County. All 8 sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.42/SF. The PAO gives most weight to fee simple Sale #1 ($212.52/SF), which was dark Toys R Us with a building size of 30,585 SF, and fee simple Sale#6 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Due to the subject's larger size, the PAO concludes $125/SF X 209,373 SF = $26,172,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $9/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,521,618 for a value indication of$20,288 ,000, or $96.90/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover/ summary page (requesting a value of$14,712,534), pro-forma Income Approach, various graphics regarding retail trend/store closings, definitions of real estate terms, roster of 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [only 1 sale was from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County], CoStar back-up sales comparable summary sheets, roster of 7 large retail leases throughout Florida [the Hobby Lobby lease for 55,000 SF @ $10/SF is the only Collier property], CoStar back-up related to those leases, a roster of 6 cap rate comps (6 Targets & 1 Wal-Mart) throughout Florida (1 is in Bonita Springs), and a 60-page Situs RERC report on the valuation of big box properties. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $8.00/SF, 10% vacancy, 7.22% expenses, and a very high unloaded cap rate of 9.00%. The PET concludes a value of$15,615,168 (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [none are in Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach Counties]. There was only 1 sale from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Five of the properties closed after 1/1/2018. All the sales were either a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or a Target store. The prices ranged from $19.69/SF of building area to a high of$51.67/SF. The PET's cover sheet indicates a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$14,712,534 ($69.93/SF), but it is not clear how he got that figure from the sales presented. His chart does indicate a median of$32.88/SF and mean of$33.62/SF from these comps that date back to 2012. I give no weight to the PET's sales, given half are outdated, most (if not all) appear heavily distressed, and they appear to come from areas with different demographic/buying power characteristics than in Collier County. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak, and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) to non-Collier market data, which means the PET did not adequately consider location per FS 193.011 [3]. The PET's failure to support land value 2019-00229 Page 3 of 4 via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed, which violates FS 193.011 [2]. In other words, the land value + impact fees (which run with the land) forms the baseline of value. For this petition, the PET is seeking a value of$14,712,534, which is less than the 2004 subject's site acquisition cost of$12,500,900 + the impact fees of$4,447,679 = $16,947,679. Given 15 years have passed (with market appreciation and over $1.6M more in construction costs in 2017-18), the PET's argument for relief and data presented do not appear to reflect current (and local) market conditions or values. While I understand many distressed big box examples exist in different parts of Florida, selecting specific low market indicators in (mostly) non-comparable market areas throughout the State of Florida and applying them to Collier County is not appropriate without much more localized supporting market evidence. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00229: 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 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. 2019-00229 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01117 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00230 Parcel ID 00165640004 Petitioner name JERRY AUCOIN, CMI Property 2550 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [71 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 10,556,018.00 10,556,018.00 10,556,018.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,262,274.00 9,262,274.00 9,262,274.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,262,274.00 9,262,274.00 9,262,274.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/11/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/11/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00230 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00230: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Wal-Mart) was represented by Jerry Aucoin [an employee of the owner]. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Sam's Club built in 1992 & 2009. The subject has the main store, plus a car wash, auto center, and also a gas station canopy. The subject's address is 2550 Immokalee Road in Naples. The adjusted building area of the main structure [i.e. without the ancillary buildings] is 132,692 SF situated upon a site of 587,674 SF (i.e. 13.49 acres). The subject is located at the SE corner of Immokalee Road and Airport Road North. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 1991 for $4,884,200. Wal-Mart sold to Sam's East, Inc. in this transaction. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,556,018, or $79.55/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, 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 of the comparable sales, various charts related to 'big box' stores, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rates, impact fee calculations, and a Wal-Mart tenant overview article. Building permit information was also provided. Over $2.2M was spent in construction costs since 2015. Of that figure, $719,543 was for re-roofing in 2015. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $2,818,756 of impact fees for a total of$14,572,226. This figure is 138% of the total assessment. The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators. The first 6 are `residuals', which are given less weight. However, Land Sales #7 - #10 are true land 2019-00230 Page 2 of 5 sales and many are of sufficient size to support $20/SF. The subject does enjoy good traffic exposure at the SE corner of Immokalee Road and Airport Road North. 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 ($5,517,544) & site improvements/paving at $720,864, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$20,811,000 (before any COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sales #2, 3, 4 & 8 are in Lee County. All 8 sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.42/SF. The PAO gives most weight to fee simple Sale #1 ($212.52/SF), which was dark Toys R Us with a building size of 30,585 SF, and fee simple Sale#6 ($235.42/SF) with a building size of 43,964 SF. Due to the subject's larger size, the PAO concludes $125/SF X 132,692 SF = $16,587,000 (before any COS consideration) for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,071,488 for a value indication of$14,287,000, or $108.00/SF. The PAO based his rent projection on the primary building & forgot to include the 4970 SF of extra space associated with the tire center and car wash. Assuming the same $10/SF rental rate, the corrected Income Approach would be $14.8M (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover/ summary page (requesting a value of$8,188,721), pro-forma Income Approach, various graphics regarding retail trend/store closings, definitions of real estate terms, roster of 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [only 1 sale was from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County], CoStar back-up sales comparable summary sheets, roster of 7 large retail leases throughout Florida [the Hobby Lobby lease for 55,000 SF @ $10/SF is the only Collier property], CoStar back-up related to those leases, a roster of 6 cap rate comps (6 Targets & 1 Wal-Mart) throughout Florida (1 is in Bonita Springs), and a 60-page Situs RERC report on the valuation of big box properties. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.00/SF applied to 135,066 SF, 10% vacancy, 7.22% expenses, and a very high unloaded cap rate of 9.75%. The PET concludes a value of$8,097,034 (before any COS deduction). It is noted the PAO's corrected rentable area (i.e. with the automotive center and car wash) is 2,596 SF greater than the rentable area used by the PET. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster 1 listing & 11 big box sales (2012 to early 2019) throughout Florida [none are in Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach Counties]. There was only 1 sale from Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Five of the properties closed after 1/1/2018. All the sales were either a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or a Target store. The prices ranged from $19.69/SF of building area to a high of$51.67/SF. The PET's cover sheet indicates a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$8,188,721, or $60.63/SF), but it is not clear how 2019-00230 Page 3 of 5 he got that figure from the sales presented. His chart does indicate a median of$32.88/ SF and mean of$33.62/SF from these comps that date back to 2012. I give no weight to the PET's sales, given half are outdated, most (if not all) appear heavily distressed, and they appear to come from areas with different demographic/buying power characteristics than in Collier County. While I do not really call it a `Sales Comparison Approach, verbally, the PET stated he based it on a contributory value of the building at $20/SF [i.e. $20 X 135,066 = $2,701,320], plus "the land value he found on line" [i.e. the PAO's land portion of the assessment, which is $5,487,401]. That form of logic does not conform to professional appraisal standards, as the land should be valued according to actual land sale transactions (and/or `residuals'), as demonstrated by the PAO's Cost Approach. The use of the PAO's allocated land value in the total assessment is not proper methodology. RULING: The PET's presentation is extremely weak, and the sales and rents are heavily weighted (almost exclusively) to non-Collier market data, which means the PET did not adequately consider location per FS 193.011 [3]. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed, which violates FS 193.011 [2]. In other words, the land value + impact fees (which run with the land) forms the baseline of value. The PET stated that he realizes the subject "sits on a valuable piece of land". The PAO's land value + impact fees (which run with the land) equate to $14,572,226. Thus, that $14.57M figure easily supports the contested just value of$10,556,018 even if no building contribution were considered. For this petition, the PET is seeking a value of$8,188,721, which is far below the land value + impact fees. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00230: 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 2019-00230 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00230 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00233 Parcel ID 66263000085 Petitioner name TIM HART Property 15265 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34119 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 12119.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 14,018,481.00 14,018,481.00 10,814,387.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,602,867.00 10,602,867.00 10,602,867.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,602,867.00 10,602,867.00 10,602,867.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/23/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi ❑ 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 2019-00233 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00233: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a shopping center, known as the Shoppes Pebblebrook Center Phase I" (anchored by a Publix), which was built in 2001 & 2002. The subject's address is 15265 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida. This location is at the SW quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. The adjusted building area is 76,996 SF situated upon a site of 405,108 SF (i.e. 9.30 acres). Apparently, the subject is at 100% occupancy. [Note: Some portions may refer to the slightly different `rentable' area of the building of 80,496 SF; however, the difference is not particularly relevant]. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has been no transfers of the subject in the last five years; however, the subject previously sold for $11,123,800 in July 2009. JUST VALUE CONTESTED & EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$14,018,481, which equates to $182.07/SF of adjusted building area, or $34.60/SF of the total land area. Both parties submitted evidence into the record prior to this hearing. Unless stated otherwise in this ruling, the evidence is considered material, relevant, and credible, unless stated otherwise. Evidence (if any) submitted at the hearing will be identified. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$14,018,481. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $23/SF, or $9,317,484, plus $1,496,903 of impact fees for a total of$10,184,387 (which is 77.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators (9 residual indicators, plus 2 actual land sales). The two actual land sales (#10 & #11) are given the greatest weight and they are of similar size as the subject. They closed for $17.18/SF in early 2016, and mid 2014, respectively. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 9 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of$23/SF appears. 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 $6,122,542 & site improvements/paving at 2019-00233 Page 2 of 6 $656,124, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$17,593,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF) extremely close to the subject (and without anchors). Sale #9 is also not far from the subject at $201.25/SF with a Winn-Dixie anchor (but in an area less developed as the subject's immediate area). Sales #3-#8 are all Publix-anchored centers dating back to 2014. While the PAO did not make a specific time/market conditions adjustment, an argument could be made that it could have been performed, given continued economic improvement over recent years. The PAO concludes $225/SF X 80,496 SF = $18,112,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $18/SF gross for 61,604 SF, $25/SF gross for 15,932 SF, $35/SF for 3,500 SF for the outparcel (BB&T), vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% (i.e. 6.861% + 1.139%) to the NOI of$1,018,188 for a value indication of$12,727,000, or $158/SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 110 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET does not provide a Cost Approach. The PET provides a cover page Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's tax roll sketch, subject's permit history (from 2001-18), outparcel building sketch, site plan, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET seeks a value reduction to $10,168,000. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon 3 different rental group categories [described below], 5% vacancy for the anchor & outparcel groups, 10% vacancy for local tenants, $5.25/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 7.89% (6.75% +1.139% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$10,168,000 (after 15% COS deduction). The PET's anchor rent was $10/SF gross, the outparcel was $50/SF gross, while the local tenant space was estimated at $44/SF gross. The PET had a separate exhibit to support all local space leases in the center with an average of$43.97/SF gross, even though no actual rent roll was provided in evidence. The PET had a 1-page roster of `outparcel banks' contract rents with a mean rent of$34.71/SF. Those rents came from various parts of Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties. A rent from Orange, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties were also part of that bank outparcel list to help support the PET's $44/SF outparcel bank rent. The PET provides another exhibit for various major retail anchors (mostly grocery store chains) in various counties (3 from Collier, Miami-Dade, Hillsboro, Sarasota, Charlotte, Broward, & Palm Beach counties). The high on that list is $10.15/SF, while the mean is $7.69/SF with most leases originating in the 2015 to the early 2019 time frame in those various counties. The PET provides 2019-00233 Page 3 of 6 another 1-page exhibit for "Anchor Space Contract Rents", which is a long list of [mostly grocery store] spaces with an average gross rent of$8.68/SF & average size of 45,348 SF. There were some rents in the lower-to-mid teens (gross) per SF, with the highest in that survey of$14.21/SF for a Broward Ross Dress for less store. The PET provides another roster/survey of `sub-anchor' contract rents, but that particular exhibit does not appear to be relevant to this petition because there are no sub-anchor spaces in the center. The PET includes various rents from numerous non-Collier (and generally inferior) areas, such as Inverness, Crystal River, Destin, etc. that I do not consider relevant to this hearing. The PET provides various other surveys, etc. related to cap rates. However, at this hearing, the PAO & PET are in basic agreement regarding cap rates, given the PET uses a loaded rate of 7.889%, while the PAO uses a loaded rate of 8.0%. There is also very little difference in expenses, given the PET uses 30.9% of EGI, while the PAO uses 30.0% of EGI. The majority of difference between the respective Income Approaches has to do with the projection of anchor rents. The PET did not provide any current rent roll or historical income/expense data to help further support any inputs, yet it is acknowledged this is a 'fee simple' analysis (and assessment). The PET does provide much better support for anchor rents than the PAO. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 11 anchored improved sales. Five were in Collier County, 2 in Hillsborough, 1 in Manatee, 1 in Pasco, 1 in Manatee, and 1 in Hillsborough (Valrico). Among these counties & cities noted, the 5 in Collier carry the most significance with the top three of those showing $/SF indicators (after 15% COS) of$144.37, $120.53, and $130.98. PET's Sale #4 (Sears) was not an arm's length sale & it was subsequently torn down. PET's Sale #5 closed in 2014; thus, it is outdated for meaningful comparison. The PET fails to include PAO's Sale #1 adjacent to the subject that closed in 10/2018 for $337.59/SF. That same property had a prior (recent) sale in 9/2016 (shown as PAO's Sale #2) for $295.40/SF. It is hard to ignore the significance of the adjacent sale to the subject, particularly when the subject's sales price/rentable SF is $174.15, which is 51.6% of the corresponding figure for the adjacent sale's price of$337.59/SF. However, it is worthy to note that the adjacent sale lacks an anchor and thus consists of smaller tenant areas with the ability to rent for much more than normal big anchors (such as Publix). The subject's anchor constitutes about 76% of the entire subject shopping center. Thus, there is a distortion created by comparing the next door neighbor, given that neighbor is benefitting from the subject's Publix drawing in patrons to its benefit, yet it does not have to suffer the lower rate granted to get that Publix in place. RULING: The PET seeks a value reduction to $10,168,000, which happens to be less than the PAO's well supported estimate of land value + impact fees totaling $10,814,387. In addition, the PET seeks a value less than what the subject previously sold for ($11,123,800) in July 2009. In order to best justify H&BU [per FS 193.011 (2)], the land value should be known, and the impact fees 'run with the land' as an add-on significant component. Essentially, the PET is trying to argue for a just value as if the site improvements and the vertical building improvements do not contribute anything to the overall property value, while the land value and impact fees are actually the most basic building blocks of value & H&BU. The PET does not stipulate or quantify any inherent 2019-00233 Page 4 of 6 functional obsolescence associated with the improvements. The PET does not verbally indicate the improvements (just 17-18 years old & at 100% occupancy) fail to contribute to the overall value [however, my further analysis and upcoming ruling may indicate that is the case]. It is noted that there was a substantial increase in the subject's just value of 45.4% from 2018 to 2019; thus, it is understandable for any owner experiencing a significant increase from the prior year to question the assessment. The PAO acknowledged significant increases to many retail properties in Collier County, given many assessments remained lower during 2018 as local owners were still in the recovery process from a hurricane in 2017. Regardless, each year's assessment (and VAB hearing) stands on its own merits and evidence submitted. The PAO's depreciation of 23.6% appears low [on page 23 of PAO's evidence] for 17/18-year old structures. Assuming a 50-year life and 17-year effective age, it would appear depreciation closer to 34% would be more appropriate. Thus, the PAO's Cost Approach appears a little overstated by about $636,000, but even with that correction would be supportive of his assessment. The PAO does do a good job of supporting the land value + impact fees for a total of$10,814,387. I consider that the 'base line' of the subject's value, which is a significant aspect of this ruling. Upon further review of the PAO's anchor rental data & the PET's anchor rent data, it appears the PAO's evidence is deficient in support of$18.00 gross for an anchor grocery store space of 61,604 SF. However, the PET's $10.00 does appear to be better supported with many different anchor rents. The PET also does a good job of supporting the two other rent categories of locals ($44.00/SF) and the outparcel ($50/SF). As for vacancy, there appears to be greater weight for 5% vacancy, given the subject is already at 100% occupancy, and the adjacent center apparently is also at very high occupancy as well. As for a corrected income approach, I give weight to the PET's rents of$10/SF (anchor), $44/SF (locals), and $50/SF (outparcel), 5% vacancy, 30% expenses, 8.0% loaded cap rate, resulting in a preliminary value of$12,503,000, less 15% COS, resulting in an Income Approach indicator of$10,627,550. I compare that to the `baseline' PAO figure of land + impact fees of$10,814,387. I reconcile these two indicators to the higher, per H&BU considerations. It would appear from the data that the income generated by the property is 'to the land', based upon these factors. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. There is sufficient evidence in the record to establish support for an alternate just value. The recommended just value is lowered to $10,814,387. This results in an increase over the 2018 just value of$1,175,417, or a 12.2% increase, which is still significant. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00233: 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 2019-00233 Page 5 of 6 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. 2019-00233 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00235 Parcel ID 37169520009 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 30 GOLDEN GATE BLVDW The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address [' other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34117 Decision Summary I. Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,377,721.00 2,377,721.00 2,377,721.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,300,505.00 2,300,505.00 2,300,505.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,300,505.00 2,300,505.00 2,300,505.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ 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 2019-00235 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00235: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing, but did submit an email requesting that their evidence be considered PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2009. The subject's address is 30 Golden Gate Boulevard West, Naples, FL. The adjusted building area is 14,232 SF situated upon a site of 166,502 SF (i.e. 3.82 'net' acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property last sold as land value for $3.21M in 2006. The contested just value is significantly greater than the subject's prior land sale 13 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$2,377,721, or $167/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12/SF, plus $177,784 of impact fees for a total of$1,953,436 (which is 82.2% of the total assessment). The land value 2019-00235 Page 2 of 3 estimate was based upon the 16 commercial land sale indicators. The land value appears very well supported by those $/SF sale indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a traffic 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 ($1,436,698) & site improvements/paving at $126,700, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,517,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 14,232 SF = $2,846,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO's 14 sales result in an average price per square foot of building indication of$366.74. The PAO indicates improved sales #4 through #10 (and #14) were all leased fee sales (mostly similar drug store sales) that were given no weight, given their leases impacted their prices. The PAO indicates he gave most weight to the fee simple sales #1, 11, 12 & 13. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$179,323 for a value indication of$2,391,000, or $168/SF (before COS consideration). . The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sale map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,063,914. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. It also uses a land value that is extremely low (and in this case lower per SF than any of the PET's land sales). I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four had the same seller & one appears to be a church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00235: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00235 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-0485 7 = VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 1—I These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00236 Parcel ID 66263000027 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 15295 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address CI other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34119 Decision Summary 7 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action I 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 3,003,407.00 3,003,407.00 3,003,407.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,535,049.00 2,535,049.00 2,535,049.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,535,049.00 2,535,049.00 2,535,049.00 *AII 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) 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00236 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00236: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing, but did submit an email requesting that their evidence be considered PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2002. The subject's address is 15295 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL. 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 property last sold as land value for $1.41M ($21.30/SF of site area) in 2001. The contested just value is significantly greater than the subject's prior land sale 13 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,003,407, or $213.52/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $33/SF, plus $179,367 of impact fees for a total of$2,364,337 (which is 78.7% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 15 commercial land sale indicators. The land value appears 2019-00236 Page 2 of 3 very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic 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 ($1,194,783) & site improvements/paving at $44,397, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,604,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $250/SF X 14,066 SF = $3,517,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO's 14 sales result in an average price per square foot of building indication of$366.74. The PAO indicates improved sales #4 through #10 (and #14) were all leased fee sales (mostly similar drug store sales) that were given no weight, given their leases impacted their prices. The PAO indicates he gave most weight to the fee simple sales #1, 11, 12 & 13. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$265,847 for a value indication of$3,545,000, or $252/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,174,781. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four had the same seller & one appears to be a church entity. The subject property last sold as land value for $1 .41M ($21.30/SF of site area) in 2001. The PET uses a land value in his Cost Approach that is less than the subject's prior land sale 18 years ago. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00236: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00236 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00237 Parcel ID 64370000022 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property Thepetitioner is: taxpayer of record 4290 TAMIAMI 112TRL E ❑ � taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 El other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,135,472.00 2,135,472.00 2,135,472.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,057,250.00 2,057,250.00 2,057,250.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,057,250.00 2,057,250.00 2,057,250.00 *AII 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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn El 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 2019-00237 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00237: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing, but did submit an email requesting that their evidence be considered PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2001. The subject's address is 4290 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL. The adjusted building area is 14,720 SF situated upon a site of 115,869.60 SF (i.e. 2.66 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property has not sold within the past 15 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$2,135,472, or $145/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12/SF, plus $187,707 of impact fees for a total of$1,578,142 (which is 73.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 17 commercial land sale indicators. The land value appears 2019-00237 Page 2 of 3 very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic 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 ($1,053,636) & site improvements/paving at $144,946, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,777,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 14,720 SF = $2,944,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO's 14 sales result in an average price per square foot of building indication of$366.74. The PAO indicates improved sales #4 through #10 (and #14) were all leased fee sales (mostly similar drug store sales) that were given no weight, given their leases impacted their prices. The PAO indicates he gave most weight to the fee simple sales #1, 11, 12 & 13. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$185,472 for a value indication of$2,473,000, or $168/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $1,965,614. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four had the same seller & one appears to be a church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00237: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00237 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. I� These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00238 Parcel ID 00154560807 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property Thepetitioner is: taxpayer of record NAPLES, FLTAMI3 110 N ❑ � taxpayer's agent address FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,491,139.00 2,491,139.00 2,491,139.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,491,139.00 2,491,139.00 2,491,139.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,491,139.00 2,491,139.00 2,491,139.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00238 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00238: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2001. The subject's address is 13520 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL. The adjusted building area is 15,349 SF situated upon a site of 68,389 SF (i.e. 1.57 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property has not sold within the past 15 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$2,491,139, or $162/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $30/SF, plus $191,737 of impact fees for a total of$2,243,407 (which is 90.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 15 commercial land sale indicators. The land value appears very well supported by those sales indicators [especially Land Sale #1 not far away at 2019-00238 Page 2 of 3 $30.38/SF]. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic 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 ($1,238,702) & site improvements/paving at $74,753, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,557,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $225/SF X 15,349 SF = $3,454,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$290,096 for a value indication of$3,868,000, or $252/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better fee simple data presented for the Cost Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 90. 1% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,281,442. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four had the same seller & one appears to be a church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00238: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00238 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00239 Parcel ID 00236320004 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 7985 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition WI Granted your petition ❑ 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 4,921,976.00 4,921,976.00 4,430,200.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,921,976.00 4,921,976.00 4,430,200.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,921,976.00 4,921,976.00 4,430,200.00 *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) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00239 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00239: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2000. The subject's address is 7985 Airport Road North, Naples, FL. The adjusted building area is 15,264 SF situated upon a site of 84,506 SF (i.e. 1.94 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on June 22, 2018 for $5,860,000 as a leased fee transaction. This prior sale is not given significant weight because of the net lease arrangement that influenced & inflated the purchase price. The subject is assessed on a `fee simple' basis, per FL law. The contested just value equates to 84% of this recent sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$4,921,976, or $322/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF, plus $190,675 of impact 2019-00239 Page 2 of 4 fees for a total of$3,570,915 (which is 72.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. The land value appears very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic 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 ($1,445,605) & site improvements/paving at $195,890, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$5,212,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $350/SF X 15,264 SF = $5,342,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $35/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$336,571 for a value indication of$4,488,000, or $294/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data). The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,500,830. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four had the same seller & one appears to be a church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses the Cost Approach, and that approach is not credible. The PAO's presentation references the subject's very recent 2018 `leased fee' sales price of$5,860,000. The contested just value of$4,921,976 equates to 84% of that price under a net lease. It gives the appearance (intentional or not) that the PAO applied the [approximate] 15% COS to the purchase price, resulting in just value now being contested. Thus, if the PAO's 7 different `leased fee' improved sales in his Sales Comparison Approach are given very little (if any) consideration because of their net leases impacting their high prices, it makes sense that the subject's assessment should also not approximate 84% to 85% of that recent price. The PAO's contested just value of$4,921,976 equates to 92. 1% of his Sales Comparison Approach; thus, the PAO appears to be influenced too much by those leased fee sales. The approach given most weight for this type of property for a 'fee simple' value is the Cost Approach, given the data provided to support the inputs is the strongest among the 3 approaches presented by the PAO. The Cost Approach is also not influenced by leases (or lease projections). The construction is simplistic enough and depreciation is straightforward based upon an effective age of 15 years. There were 11 commercial land sales offering a very good guide to fee simple land value. I give greatest weight to the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion of$5,212,000, less 15% COS = $4,430,200, or 2019-00239 Page 3 of 4 $297.48/SF. This also equates to $53.73/SF of land area for the subject's prominent corner location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET, in the sense that a reduction of$491,776 is warranted to the contested just value. There is sufficient evidence in the record resulting in the recommended assessment of$4,430,200. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00239: 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 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. 2019-00239 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 017 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 > F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00241 Parcel ID 00084040002 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 1450 IMMOKALEE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,677,789.00 1,677,789.00 1,677,789.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,677,789.00 1,677,789.00 1,677,789.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,677,789.00 1,677,789.00 1,677,789.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00241 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00241: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2000. The subject's address is 1450 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, FL. The adjusted building area is 15,048 SF situated upon a site of 100,988 SF (i.e. 2.32 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property has not sold within the past 15 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$1,677,789, or $111/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $7.50/SF, plus $192,793 of impact fees for a total of$950,206 (which is 56.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 6 commercial land sale indicators in the subject's area. Land Sales #4 ($8.20/SF) and #5 ($7.90/SF) are consecutive adjacent lots to the 2019-00241 Page 2 of 3 subject. The land value appears very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at an 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 ($1,044,630) & site improvements/paving at $120,576, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,115,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 11 sales. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 15,048 SF = $2,257,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $15/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$142,204 for a value indication of$1,896,000, or $126/SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $1,329,406. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. None are remotely close in proximity to the subject; whereas, the PAO uses 6 sales in the subject's market area. Four of the PET's land sales had the same seller & one appears to be a (disqualified sale) church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00241: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00241 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-0485 7 VALUE PETITION Rule12D-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00242 Parcel ID 36316200005 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 4747 GOLDEN GATE PKWY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address CI other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34116 Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action I 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 1,926,716.00 1,926,716.00 1,926,716.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,926,716.00 1,926,716.00 1,926,716.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,926,716.00 1,926,716.00 1,926,716.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00242 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00242: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 2008. The subject's address is 4747 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL. The adjusted building area is 14,704 SF situated upon a site of 74,052 SF (i.e. 1.70 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property has not sold within the past 10 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$1,926,716, or $131/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15/SF, plus $187,503 of impact fees for a total of$1,298,283 (which is 67.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 5 commercial land sale indicators. Three [given most weight] of the 5 are in the subject's market area, while 2 of the sales are located on the 2019-00242 Page 2 of 3 East Trail. The land value appears very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic intersection along Golden Gate Parkway. 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 ($1,277,122) & site improvements/paving at $95,902, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,671,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 13 sales. The PAO concludes $175/SF X 14,704 SF = $2,573,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Improved Sale #8 ($197.92/SF) is the closest sale and within the subject's general market area, but it is a much smaller building. Six of the 13 sales are leased fee transactions given little weight. The remaining fee simple sales are generally supportive of the $175/SF rate, but the sales are scattered around great distances within the county and it would have been desirable to have more sales closer in building area. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$185,270 for a value indication of$2,470,000, or $168/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $1,816,371. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four of the PET's land sales had the same seller & one appears to be a (disqualified sale) church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00242: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00242 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00243 Parcel ID 11280040002 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 2200 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [71 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 [' other, explain: , Decision Summary It Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 5,085,293.00 5,085,293.00 5,085,293.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,476,310.00 4,476,310.00 4,476,310.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,476,310.00 4,476,310.00 4,476,310.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00243 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00243: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence 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, Naples, FL. 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 property has not sold within the past 10 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$5,085,293, or $310/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $50/SF, plus $194,996 of impact fees for a total of$4,841,096 (which is 95.2% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 17 commercial land sale indicators. Three are actual land sales, while 14 are `residual' indicators [given less weight]. The land value appears very 2019-00243 Page 2 of 3 well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure along 9th Street (Tamiami Trail). The best true land sale is #8, which is on the Trail and sold for $55.54/SF with a very similar lot size of 86,691 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 ($1,792,429) & site improvements/paving at $137,649, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$6,771,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The best fee simple sale (and also the closest sale) is #8 ($351.56/SF). The PAO concludes $350/SF X 16,414 SF = $5,745,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $35/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$361,929 for a value indication of$4,826,000, or $294/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better fee simple data presented for the Cost Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 95.2% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $3,380,213. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four had the same seller & one appears to be a church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The subject's entire assessment equates to $54.73/SF of the subject's land area, which basically could be supported just by the PAO's true land sales. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00243: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00243 Page 3 of 3 5 17 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R 085 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00244 Parcel ID 00177000205 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 8900 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 71 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presentedby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,610,154.00 4,610,154.00 4,610,154.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,736,817.00 3,736,817.00 3,736,817.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,736,817.00 3,736,817.00 3,736,817.00 *AII 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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ 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 2019-00244 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00244: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 1997. The subject's address is 8900 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL. The adjusted building area is 17,310 SF situated upon a site of 95,396 SF (i.e. 2.19 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property has not sold within the past 20 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$4,610,154, or $266/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF, plus $216,234 of impact fees for a total of$4,032,074 (which is 87.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators with an average price of $38.35/SF. The land value appears well supported by those sales indicators. The subject 2019-00244 Page 2 of 3 does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic intersection of Tamiami Trail & Vanderbilt Beach Road. 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 ($1,563,997) & site improvements/paving at $146,404, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$5,742,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $350/SF X 17,310 SF = $6,059,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Sale #13 appears to provide good support for the fee simple value, given it is also on the North Trail and sold for $351.56/SF. I give little weight to the leased fee sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $35/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$381,686 for a value indication of$5,089,000, or $294/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better fee simple data presented for the Cost Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 87.5% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,797,790. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four had the same seller & one appears to be a church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00244: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00244 Page 3 of 3 111 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00245 Parcel ID 25368000028 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 12780 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,130,830.00 3,130,830.00 3,130,830.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,988,972.00 2,988,972.00 2,988,972.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,988,972.00 2,988,972.00 2,988,972.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00245 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00245: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 1999. The subject's address is 12780 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL. The adjusted building area is 15,834 SF situated upon a site of 55,306 SF (i.e. 1.27 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property has not sold within the past 10 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,130,830, or $198/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $35/SF, plus $201,913 of impact fees for a total of$2,137,623 (which is 68.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 15 commercial land sale indicators. The land value appears very well supported by those sales. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy 2019-00245 Page 2 of 3 traffic intersection (East Trail and Collier Boulevard). 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 ($1,286,108) & site improvements/paving at $109,573, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,533,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $250/SF X 15,834 SF = $3,959,000 (before COS consideration) for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$299,263 for a value indication of$3,990,000, or $252/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better fee simple data presented for the Cost Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 68.3% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,217,913. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. None are remotely close in proximity to the subject; whereas, the PAO uses 6 sales in the subject's market area. Four of the PET's land sales had the same seller & one appears to be a (disqualified sale) church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00245: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00245 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00246 Parcel ID 56807880008 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 1800 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,484,376.00 2,484,376.00 2,484,376.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,342,647.00 2,342,647.00 2,342,647.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,342,647.00 2,342,647.00 2,342,647.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axill ❑ 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 2019-00246 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00246: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding Walgreens drug store built in 1999. The subject's address is 1800 San Marco Road, Marco Island, FL. The adjusted building area is 17,145 SF situated upon a site of 73,058 SF (i.e. 1.91 acres). NOTE: The subject consists of 2 folio numbers; thus, originally was set up as two appealed petitions 2019-246 & 2019-248 (now withdrawn). However, the PAO did properly set up his evidence package with both petitions, which is the proper way to analyze the subject's overall assessment, regardless of the withdrawal of TP-248. Therefore, the following ruling is based upon the combined (total) site area and combined building area, because the property is one operating entity that cannot be divided. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property has not sold within the past 15 years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,029,655, or $177/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence 2019-00246 Page 2 of 4 will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $35/SF, plus $203,680 of impact fees for a total of$3,110,708 (which is 102.7% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators all located on Marco Island. The land value appears very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic 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 ($1,253,160) & site improvements/paving at $111,939, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$4,476,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 12 sales. Five are located on Marco Island. The PAO concludes $300/SF X 17,145 SF = $5,144,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$324,041 for a value indication of$4,321,000, or $252/SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better fee simple data presented for the Cost Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 102.7% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data). The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales and a land sales map. The PET's final value Cost Approach estimate of$2,158,314 also fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. None are remotely close in proximity to the subject. Four of the PET's land sales had the same seller & one appears to be a (disqualified sale) church entity. The PET does not provide any land sales on Marco Island. In fact, the PET uses the PAO's allocated land portion of the assessment for only one of the two subject folio numbers. This is not appropriate methodology. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. ** This ruling considers the combined value of both petitions, regardless of the withdrawal of TP-248. ** Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00246: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property 2019-00246 Page 3 of 4 Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00246 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V rib VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00247 Parcel ID 56930880001 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 1100 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ,]/ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,525,819.00 3,525,819.00 3,525,819.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,045,317.00 3,045,317.00 3,045,317.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,045,317.00 3,045,317.00 3,045,317.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/14/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00247 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00247: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence 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, Marco Island, FL. The adjusted building area is 15,861 SF situated upon a site of 75,089 SF (i.e. 1.72 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject property last sold in January 2012 for $5.7M. The just value contested of$3,525,819 equates to 61.9% of that purchase price 7 years prior to the assessment date. However, that prior sale was subject to a NNN lease, which impacted the consideration paid. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,525,819, or $222/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF, plus $188,426 of impact 2019-00247 Page 2 of 3 fees for a total of$3,191,996 (which is 90.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators all located on Marco Island. The land value appears very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure at a busy traffic 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 ($1,389,971) & site improvements/paving at $84,438, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$4,666,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 12 sales. The PAO concludes $300/SF X 15,861 SF = $4,758,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$299,773 for a value indication of$3,997,000, or $252/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better fee simple data presented for the Cost Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 90.5% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data). The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales and a land sales map. The PET's final value Cost Approach estimate of$2,695,448 also fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. None are remotely close in proximity to the subject. Four of the PET's land sales had the same seller & one appears to be a (disqualified sale) church entity. The PET does not provide any land sales on Marco Island. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00247: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00247 Page 3 of 3 rl DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00249 Parcel ID 21961000254 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 2511 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,748,059.00 3,748,059.00 3,748,059.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,431,073.00 3,431,073.00 3,431,073.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,431,073.00 3,431,073.00 3,431,073.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/14/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiam ❑ 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 2019-00249 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00249: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence 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, Naples, FL. 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 property last sold in February 2016 for $9.1M. The just value contested of$3,748,059 equates to 41.2% of that purchase price 7 years prior to the assessment date. However, that prior sale was subject to a triple net (NNN) lease, which impacted the consideration paid. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,748,059, or $260/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. The PAO submitted historical building permit information dating back to the subject's construction in 2015 showing a main permit value of$1,760,530. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. 2019-00249 Page 2 of 3 In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $33/SF, plus $179,745 of impact fees for a total of$2,954,088 (which is 78.8% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 15 commercial land sale indicators. The land value appears very well supported by those sales indicators. The subject does enjoy direct exposure a busy street (Pine Ridge Road). 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 ($1,750,170) & site improvements/paving at $101,189, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$4,805,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The PAO concludes $300/SF X 14,389 SF = $4,317,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $30/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$271,952 for a value indication of$3,626,000, or $252/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $2,704,894. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four of the PET's land sales had the same seller & one appears to be a (disqualified sale) church entity. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00249: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00249 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00250 Parcel ID 60204200442 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 7485 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34119 other, explain: Decision Summary 7 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,239,636.00 1,239,636.00 1,239,636.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,239,636.00 1,239,636.00 1,239,636.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,239,636.00 1,239,636.00 1,239,636.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/14/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00250 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00250: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Michael Slevens) did not appear at the hearing but did submit an email requesting that his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a former bank building that was converted to a dental office in 2013. It was originally built in 2006. The subject's address is 7485 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 3,981 SF situated upon a site of 43,560 SF (i.e. 1.0 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold (as a vacant bank building) in October 2012 for $956,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$1,239,636 or $311/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, drug store retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/ rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. The PAO submitted historical building permit information dating back to the subject's conversion from a bank into a dental office in 2013 showing a main permit value of$427,600. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $1,809,000, plus $83,826 of impact fees for a total of$1,892,826 (which is 94.6% of the total assessment). The land 2019-00250 Page 2 of 3 value estimate was based upon the 15 commercial land sales. The land value appears very well supported by those sales in closest proximity. The subject does enjoy direct exposure to Vanderbilt Beach road. 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 $610,490 & site improvements/paving at $75,675, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$1,859,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales, and many were former bank buildings. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $311.95-$986.37/ SF, with an average of$517.99/SF. The PAO concludes $400/SF X 3,981 SF = $1,592,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$71,658 for a value indication of$896,000, or $225/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees = 94.6% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET consists of 9 pages (a Cost Approach with land sales data. The first page is the summary of inputs to the Cost Approach followed by 7 pages of CoStar back-up information related to the land sales, and also a land sales map. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $1,018,063. The PET's Cost Approach fails to consider impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and the contributory value of the site work. This fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures. I did review the PET's land sales, & most appear to come from industrial areas. Four of the PET's land sales had the same seller & one appears to be a (disqualified sale) church entity. The PET's land value estimate of$14/SF appears to be extremely low and unjustified by the quality of land sales shown in the PAO's evidence. I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, because it is not credible. RULING: The PET's presentation only uses one approach, and that approach is not credible. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00250: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00250 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. La 'D Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 2] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00268 Parcel ID 14600120004 Petitioner name FIORE, JOAN MARIE Property 3170 GORDONDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address 111other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 7,353,738.00 7,353,738.00 7,353,738.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,829,595.00 6,829,595.00 6,829,595.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,829,595.00 6,829,595.00 6,829,595.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axil2 ❑ 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 2019-00268 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00268: Both parties provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO was under oath. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of$7,353,738. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing. Petitioner requested the Magistrate considered their evidence which consisted of tax bills and property record cards of several different properties in the neighborhood. I looked at the evidence presented by the representative, Mr. Nicholas and the data provided are not considered relevant when estimating market value for the property. No other evidence was provided and the petitioner did not state good cause. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00268: 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$7,353,738 is presumed correct. 2019-00268 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. IA These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00269 Parcel ID 77020006509 Petitioner name SUE KEHRIG Property petitioner is: 1958 TRADE CENTERWAY The ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presentedby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9d.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,373,834.00 2,373,834.00 2,373,834.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,046,263.00 2,046,263.00 2,046,263.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,046,263.00 2,046,263.00 2,046,263.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/26/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00269 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00269: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,373,834. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C showroom and warehouse building. The building area is 20,648-sf. the land size is 50,094-sf or 1.15 acres. The building was built in 1995/24 years with an effective age of 20 years. The property sold in May 2016, for $2,305,000. The property is located at 1958 Trade Center Way, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 of which 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 56 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, 2019-00269 Page 2 of 7 limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, subject location map, zoning map and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the subject deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject (both interior and exterior), photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, operating expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees for the property, and the subject property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. At the hearing, PAO provided 12 pages of evidence, as additional support for PAO's land sales. The additional information consists of an aerial with details of each land sale in PAO's report. All evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from March 2016 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from .25 acres to 3.24. The adjusted sale price for all the sales, after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvements for sales # 2 to #8, ranges from $662,004 to $1,628,588/acre. The mean of all the sales is $1,170,933/acre and the median is $1,092,308/acre. PAO reconciled a value at $1,100,000/acre x 1.15 acres or $1,265,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $1,054,754, impact fees at $134,606, and the land value is estimated at $1,265,000 for a total cost of $2,454,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2017 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 10,100-sf to 21,750-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 33,106-sf to 108,464-sf with a building to land ratio ranging from 9% to 43%, the subject has a ratio of 41.2%. The buildings were built from 1973 to 2008. The sales range from $108.80 to $203.87/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$144.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$137.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $125.00/sf of building area including land or $2,581,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support, (in the addenda) for industrial market rents, vacancies, operating expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), from data compiled by real estate market surveys generated by companies such as Valbridge Property Advisors, CBRE, Realty Rates, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield, 2019-00269 Page 3 of 7 Commercial Property Advisors, National Real Estate Investors, CoStar and Collier county's confidential rental report (information provided by property owners). Market rents from the above sources, in the US, Southwest Florida and Collier County ranges from $7.99 to $14.00/sf triple net. Market rents in Collier County range from $10.15 to $14.00/sf. PAO used PET's income of$10.39/sf for an effective gross income of$214,511. The vacancy support, from the above sources, in the US, Southwest Florida and Collier County, range from .66%% to 16.09%. Industrial vacancies in Collier County range from .66% to 16.09%. PAO used PET's gross income, which includes the vacancy. The operating expenses support, from the above sources, in Collier County, range from 15% to 23.75%. PAO used PET's expenses of 5% of effective gross income or $11,397. The net operating income (NOI) is $203,114. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for industrial properties from the above market survey sources. The average cap rate in the US is 6.71%, Collier County cap rates range from 7% to 7.3%. %. PAO used a cap rate of 7% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.2%. The NOI of$203,114 capitalized at 8.2% indicates a value of$2,477,000 rounded. PAO's report indicates a value of$2,821,000 rounded by the Income Approach. PAO indicated a cap rate of 7.2% was put in error and the cap rate should be 8.2%. PAO indicated the correct value by the Income Approach using an 8.2% cap rate is $2,477,000 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. 2019-00269 Page 4 of 7 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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 2019-00269 Page 5 of 7 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 13-pages, which consisted of a cover letter, information on subject from Collier County assessor's office, notice of subject hearing, letter on exchange of evidence, trim notices from 2017-2018, profit and loss statements for the years 2016 to 2018 and the balance sheet for the end of years 2016 to 2018. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. In the cover letter, PET indicates the subject market value has increased from $1,860,239 in 2018 to $2,373,834 in 2018, an increase of 27.6%. PET is of the opinion the market value should be $1,964,000. PET indicates that from the years 2016-2017, rental income increased 1%, and from 2017-2018 rental income increased 0.8%. These minimal increases do not support a 27% increase in market value. PET indicates no capital improvements have been made to the property since it was purchased in 2015. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET included a depreciation expense and an interest expense; these items are not included as expenses in establishing a market value for the property. PAO indicated that PET's income and some expenses were used in determining the value by the Income Approach. Also, PAO indicated the property was purchased in May 2015 for $2,305,000, almost the current just value; PAO indicated values have increased since the purchase. SM has reviewed PET's profit and loss statement. PAO used PET's income and deducted expenses at 5% of the effective gross income of$11,397, which are PET's expenses not including depreciation of$126,999.65 and interest of$64,359.60. PAO used a well- supported cap rate of 7% and loaded a mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.2%. PAO's NOI of$203,114 is essentially equivalent to PET's NOI, less the expenses noted above; PET indicated the market value should be $1,964,000, which would indicate a loaded cap rate of 10.34%, and a cap rate of 9.14%, which is high and unsupported. PAO provided good support for value from comparable improved sales in the Sales Comparison Approach. 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 2019-00269: 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 2019-00269 Page 6 of 7 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00269 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 0111 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00279 Parcel ID 00236400005 Petitioner name CHARLIE YOUNG Property 7801 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 8,739,999.00 8,739,999.00 8,739,999.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,739,999.00 8,739,999.00 8,739,999.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,739,999.00 8,739,999.00 8,739,999.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/19/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00279 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00279: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, and Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance, but did submit 1 page of evidence into the record. Because the PET did not check the box to have the evidence considered in their absence, it will be disregarded (along with all of the PAO's evidence in the record). The assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00279: 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. 2019-00279 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RRp8517 a; VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. n These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00282 Parcel ID 00393480007 Petitioner name RCG NAPLES LLC, % RCG VENTURES, Lid Property 3721 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 17I Granted your petition ❑ 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 9,089,997.00 9,089,997.00 6,900,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,802,368.00 4,802,368.00 4,802,368.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,802,368.00 4,802,368.00 4,802,368.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/24/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axili ❑ 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 2019-00282 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00282: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. William Clark. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a shopping center built in 1982 & remodeled in 2003. The subject's address is 3721 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 90,080 SF situated upon a site of 397,493 SF (i.e. 9.13 acres). Beall's is the anchor tenant occupying 80,560 SF, or 89.4% of the total space in the center. The subject is located in a `power center' environment with other major stores in close proximity, but on different folio numbers. It is noted that TP-282 & TP-283 are adjacent properties heard separately with this same petitioner on this same hearing date. They have the same ownership & some of their financial information is comingled. However, their circumstances and data are similar in many respects. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold for $7.3M in April 2014, but that was for the combined acquisition of TP 282 & TP 283 (both heard separately on this same hearing date). The combined price was $54.43/SF, based upon 134,108 SF of building area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$9,089,997 or $100.91/SF of adjusted building area. It should be noted the subject's just value increased 108.2% from 2018, or by $4,724,208. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail cap rate/lease rate data, CoStar comparable sales, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rate information (4th Quarter 2019-00282 Page 2 of 5 2018), property building card, building permit information, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I did accept additional back-up evidence from the PAO related to aerial photos & other details related to PAO land sales that were already in the record. This was not new evidence, just clarification evidence. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF X 397,493 SF = $7,949,860 plus $1,675,127 of impact fees for a total of$9,624,987 (which is 105.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 17 commercial land sale indicators; however, 7 are `residuals' while 10 are actual land sales. There have not been any large land sales near the subject in years, yet smaller sales exist near the subject. The PAO does provide back-up summary cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $3,348,783 & site improvements/paving at $414,912, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$13,388,682 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 15 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $73.76-$416.67/SF. Many of the sales are Publix- anchored leased fee transactions. Three sales are recent re-sales & both transactions of each are shown. PAO concludes $150/SF X 90,080 SF = $13,512,000 (before COS consideration) for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12/SF gross for the subject's anchor (Beall's) space (i.e. 80,560 SF), and $20/SF gross for the 9,520 SF of local space. Vacancy/collection loss was projected at 10.0, expenses at 30.0%, and the PAO applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$728,986 for a value indication of$9,112,000, or $101.15/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 13 pages of the subject's evidence in Axia. The PET notes the subject's just value increased 108.2% from 2018, or by $4,724,208. While the PET acknowledged some degree of increase is likely warranted, that large of an increase is unjustified. The PET requests a just value of $6.9M, or $76.60/SF of adjusted building area (or $17.36/SF of land area). The PET included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides aerial photos, Summary of Salient Facts & Conclusions, exterior photographs, Income Approach, RERC investment rates, RealtyRates.com indicators for the 4th Quarter 2018, subject's rent roll, site plan, and 3 improved sales. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon the largest anchor paying $6/SF NNN and the local tenants paying $14/SF NNN. Vacancy is projected at 5%, and a market cap rate (unloaded) of 8.00% is applied to the NOI resulting in a value indication of$6.9M, or $76.60/SF (with no COS consideration requested). The subject's rent roll notes the Beall's lease is currently at $6.25/SF; however, that lease apparently originated in 2003. The PAO's assessment is fee simple and at market rates and terms. Many of the local tenants appear to be paying rents slightly above the $14 NNN projection, yet some are lower. The most recent local tenant lease was to a pool store in mid-2017 for $16.15/SF NNN + $1.75 CAM. 2019-00282 Page 3 of 5 THE PET INCLUDES A COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH: The PET includes 3 sales. #1 is a Beall's in Port Charlotte ($73.78/SF), #2 is a neighborhood center sale in Punta Gorda ($60.34/SF), and Sale #3 is in Englewood for $17.63/SF [disregarded and given no further weight in this ruling]. Thus, the PET provides two sales, but neither is located in Collier County. RULING: 1.The PAO does provide a lot of land sales information via 10 closed sales dating back to 2014. However, the subject site is relatively large at 397,493 SF & there were no similar size land sales during 2017 or 2018. The PAO's land value estimate at $20/SF appears very aggressive for the subject's location. 2.The subject's prior sale for $7.3M included TP-282 + TP 283, which combined for 134,108 SF. Thus that $7.3M purchase price a little more than 4.5 years ago was for $54.43/SF, and now the subject of TP-282 has an assessment of$100.91/SF (almost double! !). This does not appear equitable or reasonable, given some appreciation has taken place, but not to that extent. 3.Both the PET and PAO use the sale of the Beall's store (of very similar size) in Port Charlotte for $73.78/SF. That one sale appears to be the only sale in the PAO's evidence of reasonable comparability to the subject, so it is given weight. It is also the better (of 2) sales presented in the PET's evidence, given PET's Sale #3 is disregarded. 4.The PAO's Income Approach does not appear to have any good support for the anchor rental rate. The rate for the largest anchor space I could find was $10.79/SF NNN and that was for 20,062 SF, as shown on the top of page 49 of PAO's evidence). The subject's anchor space occupied by Beall's is 80,560 SF. I did not notice any other anchor rates in PAO's evidence to justify the use of his $12/SF gross rate. The subject's CAM approximates $1.75/SF, so the PAO's Income Approach also appears excessive. 5. One would think there should logically be some `relative reasonableness' between the prior (combined) acquisition price of$54.43/SF, as compared to the subject's current assessment/SF, yet recognizing gradual market/economic improvement; however, that does not mean the subject's assessment should have increased by 108.2% ($4.724M) in a little over 4.5 years. 6. The PET's request for a just value of$6.9M ($76.60/SF) is based upon PET's Income Approach conclusion. Given an acquisition price of$54.43/SF, the resulting annual compound rate of appreciate to get to $76.60/SF (over approximately 4.7 years) is close to 7.53%. While possibly still an aggressive rate, the PET's Income Approach is the best evidence in the record, which also happens to be closely supported by the Port Charlotte Beall's sale both parties use that closed for $73.78/SF. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be lowered to $6,900,000. The PAO's land value + impact fees is excessive. This ruling still results in a very substantial (46%) increase in the subject's just value from 2018 of$2,175,792. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00282: 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, 2019-00282 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00282 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ✓ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00283 Parcel ID 00393520006 Petitioner name RCG NAPLES LLC, % RYAN LLC Property 3725 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 7 Granted your petition El 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 4,483,664.00 4,483,664.00 3,800,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,471,942.00 2,471,942.00 2,471,942.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,471,942.00 2,471,942.00 2,471,942.00 *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) • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/24/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00283 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00283: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. William Clark. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a shopping center built in 1982. The subject's address is 3725 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 44,028 SF situated upon a site of 221,340 SF (i.e. 5.08 acres). Save-a-Lot was an anchor tenant, but that space is now dark. Goodwill is another significant tenant. The subject is located in a `power center' environment with other major stores in close proximity, but on different folio numbers. It is noted that TP-282 & TP-283 are adjacent properties heard separately with this same petitioner on this same hearing date. They have the same ownership & some of their financial information is comingled. However, their circumstances and data are similar in many respects. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold for $7.3M in April 2014, but that was for the combined acquisition of TP 282 & TP 283 (both heard separately on this same hearing date). The combined price was $54.43/SF, based upon 134,108 SF of building area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$4,483,664 or $100.84/SF of adjusted building area. It should be noted the subject's just value increased 99.5% from 2018, or by $2,236,444. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail cap rate/lease rate data, CoStar comparable sales, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rate information (4th Quarter 2019-00283 Page 2 of 5 2018), property building card, building permit information, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I did accept additional back-up evidence from the PAO related to aerial photos & other details related to PAO land sales that were already in the record. This was not new evidence, just clarification evidence. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF X 221,340 SF = $4,426,800 plus $769,861 of impact fees for a total of$5,169,661 (which is 115.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 17 commercial land sale indicators; however, 7 are `residuals' while 10 are actual land sales. There have not been any large land sales near the subject in years, yet smaller sales exist near the subject. The PAO does provide back-up summary cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $1,613,890 & site improvements/paving at $177,087, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$6,988,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 15 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $73.76-$416.67/SF. Many of the sales are Publix- anchored leased fee transactions. Three sales are recent re-sales & both transactions of each are shown. PAO concludes $150/SF X 44,028 SF = $6,604,000 (before COS consideration) for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross for the subject's total space. Vacancy/collection loss was projected at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and the PAO applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of$554,753 for a value indication of $6,934,000, or $157.49/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 14 pages of the subject's evidence in Axia. The PET notes the subject's just value increased 99.5% from 2018, or by $2,236,444. While the PET acknowledged some degree of increase is likely warranted, that large of an increase is unjustified. The PET requests a just value of$3.8M, or $86.31/SF of adjusted building area (or $17.17/SF of land area). The PET included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides aerial photos, Summary of Salient Facts & Conclusions, exterior photographs, Income Approach, RERC investment rates, RealtyRates.com indicators for the 4th Quarter 2018, subject's rent roll, site plan, and 3 improved sales. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon the largest anchor paying $6/SF NNN and the local tenants paying $14/SF NNN. Vacancy is projected at 15%, and a market cap rate (loaded for COS consideration only) of 9.00% is applied to the NOI resulting in a value indication of$6.9M, or $86.31/SF (with no additional COS consideration warranted, due to the loading of the cap rate.) The subject's rent roll notes the Save-A-Lot lease was at $3.54/SF + $2.84/SF CAM = $6.38/SF gross; however, that lease apparently originated in 2000. The PAO's assessment is fee simple and at market rates and terms. Many of the local tenants appear to be paying rents slightly above the $14 NNN projection, yet some are lower. The most recent local tenant lease was to a pool store in mid-2017 for $16.15/SF NNN + $1.75 CAM. [Save-A-Lot vacated in the summer of 2019 apparently, but they were occupying the 2019-00283 Page 3 of 5 space on the assessment date.] THE PET INCLUDES A COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH: The PET includes 3 sales. #1 is a Beall's in Port Charlotte ($73.78/SF), #2 is a neighborhood center sale in Punta Gorda ($60.34/SF), and Sale #3 is in Englewood for $17.63/SF [disregarded and given no further weight in this ruling]. Thus, the PET provides two sales, but neither sale is located in Collier County. RULING: 1.The PAO does provide a lot of land sales information via 10 closed sales dating back to 2014. However, the subject site is relatively large at 221,340 SF & there were no similar size land sales during 2017 or 2018. The PAO's land value estimate at $20/SF appears aggressive for the subject's location. 2.The subject's prior sale for $7.3M included TP-282 + TP 283, which combined for 134,108 SF. Thus that $7.3M purchase price a little more than 4.5 years ago was for $54.43/SF, and now the subject of TP-283 has an assessment of$101.84/SF (almost double! !). This does not appear equitable or reasonable, given some appreciation has taken place, but not to that extent. 3.Both the PET and PAO use the sale of the Beall's store in Port Charlotte for $73.78/SF. It is also the better (of 2) sales presented in the PET's evidence, given PET's Sale #2 is in Punta Gorda ($60.34/SF) & Sale #3 is disregarded. 4.The PAO's Income Approach does not appear to have very good support for the $20/SF gross anchor rental rate for the 21,000 SF space. The rate for the similar 20,062 space I could find was $10.79/SF NNN, as shown on the top of page 49 of PAO's evidence). Therefore, the PAO's Income Approach also appears excessive. 5. One would think there should logically be some `relative reasonableness' between the prior (combined) acquisition price of$54.43/SF, as compared to the subject's current assessment/SF, yet recognizing gradual market/economic improvement; however, that does not mean the subject's assessment should have increased by 99.5% ($2,236,444) in a little over 4.5 years. 6. The PET's request for a just value of$3.8M ($86.31/SF) is based upon PET's Income Approach conclusion. Given an acquisition price of$54.43/SF, the resulting annual compound rate of appreciate to get to $76.60/SF (over approximately 4.7 years) is close to 10.3%. While still an aggressive rate, the PET's Income Approach is the best evidence in the record, which also happens to be somewhat supported by the Port Charlotte Beall's sale both parties use that closed in late 2016 for $73.78/SF. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be lowered to $3,800,000 figure requested by the PET. The PAO's land value + impact fees are excessive. This ruling still results in a very substantial (70%) increase of$1,563,556 in the subject's just value from 2018. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00283: 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 2019-00283 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00283 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RRo8517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00295 Parcel ID 29520002608 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record El taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 100.00 100.00 100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 100.00 100.00 100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 100.00 100.00 100.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00295 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00295: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Seven contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a shopping center with several small land parcels adjacent and contiguous to the shopping center known as Crossroads Market Community shopping center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just values as follows Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00295, Just Value of$100 for petition # 2019-00296, Just value of$25,042,305 for petition # 2019-00297, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00298, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00299, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00300, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00301 Total just value of$25,042,905. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, The building area is 126,448-sf. the land size is 632,513-sf or 14.52 acres. The building was built in 2004. The properties are located at 5991 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00295 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 91 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 to February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 632,513-sf or $14,548,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $12,962,333, impact fees at $2,175,877, and the land value is estimated at $14,547,799 for a total cost of $29,686,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping 2019-00295 Page 3 of 8 centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $225.00/sf of building area including land or $28,451,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net leased in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00/sf or $3,161,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources, from PAO, for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples, for the year 2018, indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $316,120. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $853,524. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,991,556. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar 2019-00295 Page 4 of 8 indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$1,991,556 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$24,894,000 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 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2019-00295 Page 5 of 8 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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $25,042,905. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $100.00 for petition# 2017-00295 PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a photo of the signage at the subject, four(4) sales sheets of shopping centers and photos of the interior and exterior of the subject. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 4 improved sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide support for market rents at the subject. PET used the actual rents at the subject for the year 2019. The total revenue is $2,440,172 or $19.20/sf. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. 2019-00295 Page 6 of 8 PET deducted actual operating expenses of$816,852 or 33.46% of total income of $2,440,172. PET added the real estate taxes of$140,544 for total expenses of$957,396. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $1,763,864. PET used a cap rate of 9.00% and loaded a mill rate of 1.10373% for a total cap rate of 10.10373% and capitalized the net income of$1,763,864 for a value of$17,547,552. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $2,618,633 for an indicated value of$14,838,919. PET provided information of 4 sales but one sale had no information. The remaining 3 sales are in Naples and occurred from March 2016 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 50,770 to 123,201-sf, the land size ranges from 6.6 to 25.11 acres. The properties sold in the range of$57.00 to $100.32/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the Income Approach based on actual rents and not market rents. The fee simple value is being sought. PAO indicated one of PET's improved sales was not a valid sale. PET had no rebuttal PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's estimate of value is based on actual rents at the subject, some of which are older leases and not at current market rate. PET did not provide support for the expenses and cap rate used in their analysis. 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 2019-00295: 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. 2019-00295 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00295 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDAa Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00296 Parcel ID 29520002556 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary ZI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 100.00 100.00 100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 100.00 100.00 100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 100.00 100.00 100.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim El 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 2019-00296 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00296: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Seven contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a shopping center with several small land parcels adjacent and contiguous to the shopping center known as Crossroads Market Community shopping center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just values as follows Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00295, Just Value of$100 for petition # 2019-00296, Just value of$25,042,305 for petition # 2019-00297, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00298, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00299, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00300, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00301 Total just value of$25,042,905. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, The building area is 126,448-sf. the land size is 632,513-sf or 14.52 acres. The building was built in 2004. The properties are located at 5991 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00296 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 91 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 to February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 632,513-sf or $14,548,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $12,962,333, impact fees at $2,175,877, and the land value is estimated at $14,547,799 for a total cost of $29,686,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping 2019-00296 Page 3 of 8 centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $225.00/sf of building area including land or $28,451,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net leased in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00/sf or $3,161,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources, from PAO, for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples, for the year 2018, indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $316,120. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $853,524. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,991,556. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar 2019-00296 Page 4 of 8 indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$1,991,556 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$24,894,000 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 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. 193.011outlines 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2019-00296 Page 5 of 8 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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $25,042,905. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $100.00 for petition# 2017-00296 PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a photo of the signage at the subject, four(4) sales sheets of shopping centers and photos of the interior and exterior of the subject. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 4 improved sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide support for market rents at the subject. PET used the actual rents at the subject for the year 2019. The total revenue is $2,440,172 or $19.20/sf. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. 2019-00296 Page 6 of 8 PET deducted actual operating expenses of$816,852 or 33.46% of total income of $2,440,172. PET added the real estate taxes of$140,544 for total expenses of$957,396. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $1,763,864. PET used a cap rate of 9.00% and loaded a mill rate of 1.10373% for a total cap rate of 10.10373% and capitalized the net income of$1,763,864 for a value of$17,547,552. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $2,618,633 for an indicated value of$14,838,919. PET provided information of 4 sales but one sale had no information. The remaining 3 sales are in Naples and occurred from March 2016 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 50,770 to 123,201-sf, the land size ranges from 6.6 to 25.11 acres. The properties sold in the range of$57.00 to $100.32/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the Income Approach based on actual rents and not market rents. The fee simple value is being sought. PAO indicated one of PET's improved sales was not a valid sale. PET had no rebuttal PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's estimate of value is based on actual rents at the subject, some of which are older leases and not at current market rate. PET did not provide support for the expenses and cap rate used in their analysis. 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 2019-00296: 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. 2019-00296 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00296 Page 8 of 8 131 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00297 Parcel ID 29520002501 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property 5991 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary VII Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 25,042,305.00 25,042,305.00 25,042,305.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 14,604,743.00 14,604,743.00 14,604,743.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 14,604,743.00 14,604,743.00 14,604,743.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axill ❑ 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 2019-00297 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00297: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Seven contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a shopping center with several small land parcels adjacent and contiguous to the shopping center known as Crossroads Market Community shopping center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just values as follows Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00295, Just Value of$100 for petition # 2019-00296, Just value of$25,042,305 for petition # 2019-00297, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00298, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00299, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00300, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00301 Total just value of$25,042,905. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, The building area is 126,448-sf. the land size is 632,513-sf or 14.52 acres. The building was built in 2004. The properties are located at 5991 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00297 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 91 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 to February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 632,513-sf or $14,548,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $12,962,333, impact fees at $2,175,877, and the land value is estimated at $14,547,799 for a total cost of $29,686,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping 2019-00297 Page 3 of 8 centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $225.00/sf of building area including land or $28,451,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net leased in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00/sf or $3,161,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources, from PAO, for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples, for the year 2018, indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $316,120. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $853,524. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,991,556. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar 2019-00297 Page 4 of 8 indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$1,991,556 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$24,894,000 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 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2019-00297 Page 5 of 8 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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $25,042,905. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $25,042,305 for petition# 2017-00297 PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a photo of the signage at the subject, four(4) sales sheets of shopping centers and photos of the interior and exterior of the subject. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 4 improved sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide support for market rents at the subject. PET used the actual rents at the subject for the year 2019. The total revenue is $2,440,172 or $19.20/sf. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. 2019-00297 Page 6 of 8 PET deducted actual operating expenses of$816,852 or 33.46% of total income of $2,440,172. PET added the real estate taxes of$140,544 for total expenses of$957,396. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $1,763,864. PET used a cap rate of 9.00% and loaded a mill rate of 1.10373% for a total cap rate of 10.10373% and capitalized the net income of$1,763,864 for a value of$17,547,552. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $2,618,633 for an indicated value of$14,838,919. PET provided information of 4 sales but one sale had no information. The remaining 3 sales are in Naples and occurred from March 2016 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 50,770 to 123,201-sf, the land size ranges from 6.6 to 25.11 acres. The properties sold in the range of$57.00 to $100.32/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the Income Approach based on actual rents and not market rents. The fee simple value is being sought. PAO indicated one of PET's improved sales was not a valid sale. PET had no rebuttal PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's estimate of value is based on actual rents at the subject, some of which are older leases and not at current market rate. PET did not provide support for the expenses and cap rate used in their analysis. 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 2019-00297: 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. 2019-00297 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00297 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RRo85? VALUE PETITION DR -16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00298 Parcel ID 29520002802 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary II Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 100.00 100.00 100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 100.00 100.00 100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 100.00 100.00 100.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00298 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00298: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Seven contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a shopping center with several small land parcels adjacent and contiguous to the shopping center known as Crossroads Market Community shopping center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just values as follows Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00295, Just Value of$100 for petition # 2019-00296, Just value of$25,042,305 for petition # 2019-00297, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00298, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00299, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00300, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00301 Total just value of$25,042,905. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, The building area is 126,448-sf. the land size is 632,513-sf or 14.52 acres. The building was built in 2004. The properties are located at 5991 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00298 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 91 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 to February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 632,513-sf or $14,548,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $12,962,333, impact fees at $2,175,877, and the land value is estimated at $14,547,799 for a total cost of $29,686,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping 2019-00298 Page 3 of 8 centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $225.00/sf of building area including land or $28,451,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net leased in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00/sf or $3,161,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources, from PAO, for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples, for the year 2018, indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $316,120. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $853,524. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,991,556. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar 2019-00298 Page 4 of 8 indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$1,991,556 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$24,894,000 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 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. 193.011outlines 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2019-00298 Page 5 of 8 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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $25,042,905. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $100.00 for petition# 2017-00298 PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a photo of the signage at the subject, four(4) sales sheets of shopping centers and photos of the interior and exterior of the subject. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 4 improved sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide support for market rents at the subject. PET used the actual rents at the subject for the year 2019. The total revenue is $2,440,172 or $19.20/sf. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. 2019-00298 Page 6 of 8 PET deducted actual operating expenses of$816,852 or 33.46% of total income of $2,440,172. PET added the real estate taxes of$140,544 for total expenses of$957,396. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $1,763,864. PET used a cap rate of 9.00% and loaded a mill rate of 1.10373% for a total cap rate of 10.10373% and capitalized the net income of$1,763,864 for a value of$17,547,552. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $2,618,633 for an indicated value of$14,838,919. PET provided information of 4 sales but one sale had no information. The remaining 3 sales are in Naples and occurred from March 2016 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 50,770 to 123,201-sf, the land size ranges from 6.6 to 25.11 acres. The properties sold in the range of$57.00 to $100.32/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the Income Approach based on actual rents and not market rents. The fee simple value is being sought. PAO indicated one of PET's improved sales was not a valid sale. PET had no rebuttal PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's estimate of value is based on actual rents at the subject, some of which are older leases and not at current market rate. PET did not provide support for the expenses and cap rate used in their analysis. 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 2019-00298: 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. 2019-00298 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00298 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V �t VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 ¢ F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00299 Parcel ID 29520002750 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 100.00 100.00 100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 100.00 100.00 100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 100.00 100.00 100.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00299 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00299: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Seven contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a shopping center with several small land parcels adjacent and contiguous to the shopping center known as Crossroads Market Community shopping center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just values as follows Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00295, Just Value of$100 for petition # 2019-00296, Just value of$25,042,305 for petition # 2019-00297, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00298, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00299, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00300, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00301 Total just value of$25,042,905. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, The building area is 126,448-sf. the land size is 632,513-sf or 14.52 acres. The building was built in 2004. The properties are located at 5991 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00299 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 91 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 to February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 632,513-sf or $14,548,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $12,962,333, impact fees at $2,175,877, and the land value is estimated at $14,547,799 for a total cost of $29,686,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping 2019-00299 Page 3 of 8 centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $225.00/sf of building area including land or $28,451,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net leased in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00/sf or $3,161,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources, from PAO, for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples, for the year 2018, indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $316,120. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $853,524. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,991,556. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and Co Star; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar 2019-00299 Page 4 of 8 indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$1,991,556 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$24,894,000 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 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2019-00299 Page 5 of 8 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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $25,042,905. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $100.00 for petition# 2017-00299 PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a photo of the signage at the subject, four(4) sales sheets of shopping centers and photos of the interior and exterior of the subject. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 4 improved sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide support for market rents at the subject. PET used the actual rents at the subject for the year 2019. The total revenue is $2,440,172 or $19.20/sf. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. 2019-00299 Page 6 of 8 PET deducted actual operating expenses of$816,852 or 33.46% of total income of $2,440,172. PET added the real estate taxes of$140,544 for total expenses of$957,396. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $1,763,864. PET used a cap rate of 9.00% and loaded a mill rate of 1.10373% for a total cap rate of 10.10373% and capitalized the net income of$1,763,864 for a value of$17,547,552. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $2,618,633 for an indicated value of$14,838,919. PET provided information of 4 sales but one sale had no information. The remaining 3 sales are in Naples and occurred from March 2016 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 50,770 to 123,201-sf, the land size ranges from 6.6 to 25.11 acres. The properties sold in the range of$57.00 to $100.32/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the Income Approach based on actual rents and not market rents. The fee simple value is being sought. PAO indicated one of PET's improved sales was not a valid sale. PET had no rebuttal PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's estimate of value is based on actual rents at the subject, some of which are older leases and not at current market rate. PET did not provide support for the expenses and cap rate used in their analysis. 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 2019-00299: 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. 2019-00299 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00299 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 08517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. j These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00300 Parcel ID 29520002705 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 100.00 100.00 100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 100.00 100.00 100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 100.00 100.00 100.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa El 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 2019-00300 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00300: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Seven contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a shopping center with several small land parcels adjacent and contiguous to the shopping center known as Crossroads Market Community shopping center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just values as follows Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00295, Just Value of$100 for petition # 2019-00296, Just value of$25,042,305 for petition # 2019-00297, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00298, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00299, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00300, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00301 Total just value of$25,042,905. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, The building area is 126,448-sf. the land size is 632,513-sf or 14.52 acres. The building was built in 2004. The properties are located at 5991 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies 2019-00300 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 91 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 to February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 632,513-sf or $14,548,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $12,962,333, impact fees at $2,175,877, and the land value is estimated at $14,547,799 for a total cost of $29,686,000 rounded. 2019-00300 Page 3 of 8 PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $225.00/sf of building area including land or $28,451,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net leased in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00/sf or $3,161,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources, from PAO, for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples, for the year 2018, indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $316,120. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $853,524. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,991,556. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and Co Star; reports from the market surveys are 2019-00300 Page 4 of 8 dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$1,991,556 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$24,894,000 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 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. 193.011outlines 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject 2019-00300 Page 5 of 8 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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $25,042,905. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $100.00 for petition# 2017-00300 PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a photo of the signage at the subject, four(4) sales sheets of shopping centers and photos of the interior and exterior of the subject. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 4 improved sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide support for market rents at the subject. PET used the actual rents at the subject for the year 2019. The total revenue is $2,440,172 or $19.20/sf. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. 2019-00300 Page 6 of 8 PET deducted actual operating expenses of$816,852 or 33.46% of total income of $2,440,172. PET added the real estate taxes of$140,544 for total expenses of$957,396. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $1,763,864. PET used a cap rate of 9.00% and loaded a mill rate of 1 .10373% for a total cap rate of 10.10373% and capitalized the net income of$1,763,864 for a value of$17,547,552. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $2,618,633 for an indicated value of$14,838,919. PET provided information of 4 sales but one sale had no information. The remaining 3 sales are in Naples and occurred from March 2016 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 50,770 to 123,201-sf, the land size ranges from 6.6 to 25.11 acres. The properties sold in the range of$57.00 to $100.32/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the Income Approach based on actual rents and not market rents. The fee simple value is being sought. PAO indicated one of PET's improved sales was not a valid sale. PET had no rebuttal PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's estimate of value is based on actual rents at the subject, some of which are older leases and not at current market rate. PET did not provide support for the expenses and cap rate used in their analysis. 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 2019-00300: 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. 2019-00300 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00300 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00301 Parcel ID 29520002653 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 100.00 100.00 100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 100.00 100.00 100.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 100.00 100.00 100.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00301 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00301: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Seven contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a shopping center with several small land parcels adjacent and contiguous to the shopping center known as Crossroads Market Community shopping center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just values as follows Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00295, Just Value of$100 for petition # 2019-00296, Just value of$25,042,305 for petition # 2019-00297, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00298, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00299, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00300, Just Value $100 for petition # 2019-00301 Total just value of$25,042,905. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, The building area is 126,448-sf. the land size is 632,513-sf or 14.52 acres. The building was built in 2004. The properties are located at 5991 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00301 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 91 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 to February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 632,513-sf or $14,548,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $12,962,333, impact fees at $2,175,877, and the land value is estimated at $14,547,799 for a total cost of $29,686,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping 2019-00301 Page 3 of 8 centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $225.00/sf of building area including land or $28,451,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net leased in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$20.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$25.00/sf or $3,161,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources, from PAO, for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples, for the year 2018, indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $316,120. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $853,524. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,991,556. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar 2019-00301 Page 4 of 8 indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$1,991,556 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$24,894,000 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 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. 193.011outlines 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2019-00301 Page 5 of 8 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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $25,042,905. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $100.00 for petition# 2017-00301. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a photo of the signage at the subject, four(4) sales sheets of shopping centers and photos of the interior and exterior of the subject. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 4 improved sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide support for market rents at the subject. PET used the actual rents at the subject for the year 2019. The total revenue is $2,440,172 or $19.20/sf. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. 2019-00301 Page 6 of 8 PET deducted actual operating expenses of$816,852 or 33.46% of total income of $2,440,172. PET added the real estate taxes of$140,544 for total expenses of$957,396. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $1,763,864. PET used a cap rate of 9.00% and loaded a mill rate of 1.10373% for a total cap rate of 10.10373% and capitalized the net income of$1,763,864 for a value of$17,547,552. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $2,618,633 for an indicated value of$14,838,919. PET provided information of 4 sales but one sale had no information. The remaining 3 sales are in Naples and occurred from March 2016 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 50,770 to 123,201-sf, the land size ranges from 6.6 to 25.11 acres. The properties sold in the range of$57.00 to $100.32/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the Income Approach based on actual rents and not market rents. The fee simple value is being sought. PAO indicated one of PET's improved sales was not a valid sale. PET had no rebuttal PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's estimate of value is based on actual rents at the subject, some of which are older leases and not at current market rate. PET did not provide support for the expenses and cap rate used in their analysis. 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 2019-00301: 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. 2019-00301 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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. 2019-00301 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00302 Parcel ID 16054800004 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property 866 NEAPOLITANWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 171 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 13,846,659.00 13,846,659.00 13,846,659.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 13,846,659.00 13,846,659.00 13,846,659.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 13,846,659.00 13,846,659.00 13,846,659.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/08/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axij ❑ 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 2019-00302 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00302: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Two parcels, under the same ownership are being valued as one parcel. One property is located at 866 Neapolitan Way, Naples (Petition # 2019-00302) and is improved with a strip shopping center; the just value of this property is $13,846,659. The second parcel is located across the street from Neapolitan Way with frontage along 9th Street N or US-41 at 4601 9th Street North, Naples (Petition # 2019-00303). The site is improved with a Publix grocery store; the just value for this property is $16,965,815. The total just value of both parcels is $30,812,474. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. The subject properties sold in June 2018 for $37,780,000. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building. The total building area is 139,335-sf, two attached maintenance area have an area of 9,156-sf. The land size is 635,540-sf or 14.59 acres. The actual age is 30, 31 and 32 years. The properties are located at 866 Neapolitan Way and 4601 9th Street North, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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, 2019-00302 Page 2 of 6 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 80 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 too February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $35.00/sf x 635,540-sf or $22,244,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $13,834,091, impact fees at $2,291,042, and the land value is estimated at $22,243,900 for a total cost of $38,369,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. 2019-00302 Page 3 of 6 The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $250.00/sf of building area including land or $34,834,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net lease in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$23.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$28.00/sf or $3,901,380. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $390,138. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $1,053,373. The net operating income (NOI) is $2,457,869. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper 2019-00302 Page 4 of 6 indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$2,457,869 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$30,723,000 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 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 - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm's length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. 2019-00302 Page 5 of 6 (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, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income — PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual 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 54-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: $30,812,474. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $13,846,659 for petition# 2017-00302 PET submitted evidence, a 17-page report. However, PET did not present the evidence at the hearing. PET indicated he was not aware the subject property had sold in June 2018. PET indicated he was in agreement with PAO's just value of$30,812,474 for both parcels. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00302: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner chose not to present the evidence they had submitted. 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. 2019-00302 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. 6 Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00303 Parcel ID 16054880008 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property 4601 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1Z1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Valuepresented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 120-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 16,965,815.00 16,965,815.00 16,965,815.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,965,815.00 16,965,815.00 16,965,815.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,965,815.00 16,965,815.00 16,965,815.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/08/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00303 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00303: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Two parcels, under the same ownership are being valued as one parcel. One property is located at 866 Neapolitan Way, Naples (Petition # 2019-00302) and is improved with a strip shopping center; the just value of this property is $13,846,659. The second parcel is located across the street from Neapolitan Way with frontage along 9th Street N or US-41 at 4601 9th Street North, Naples (Petition # 2019-00303). The site is improved with a Publix grocery store; the just value for this property is $16,965,815. The total just value of both parcels is $30,812,474. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. The subject properties sold in June 2018 for $37,780,000. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building. The total building area is 139,335-sf, two attached maintenance area have an area of 9,156-sf. The land size is 635,540-sf or 14.59 acres. The actual age is 30, 31 and 32 years. The properties are located at 866 Neapolitan Way and 4601 9th Street North, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00303 Page 2 of 6 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 80 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. Sales # 10 and 11 are vacant land sales that range in size from 339,768 to 494,842-sf that sold from July 2014 too February 2016 at $17.18 to $26.39/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.66/sf and the median is $25.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $35.00/sf x 635,540-sf or $22,244,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $13,834,091, impact fees at $2,291,042, and the land value is estimated at $22,243,900 for a total cost of $38,369,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of strip shopping centers in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2014 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 139,335-sf; the land size for these 2019-00303 Page 3 of 6 sales ranges from 305,791-sf to 818,928-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2009. The sales range from $110.99 to $337.59/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$232.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$231.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $250.00/sf of building area including land or $34,834,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from CBRE, REIS, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$20.14 to $26.70/sf, with a mean of$22.89/sf. CoStar provided rents in Naples for triple net lease in the range of$8.80 to $55.33 with a mean of$19.86/sf. Confidential information from Collier County Appraiser's office indicated starting rents for retail space in Naples at $21.23/sf. PAO used a rent of$23.00/sf with $5.00 for common area maintenance (CAM) for a total rent of$28.00/sf or $3,901,380. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 12.88% with a mean of 7.7%. CoStar provides vacancies from buildings in Naples that range from 0% to 21.75% with a mean of 15.55%, also CoStar provides a mean vacancy of 8.33% for strip and neighborhood shopping centers. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 indicated a mean of 8.19%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $390,138. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 42.10%; CoStar provides a range from 5% to 40% with a mean of 27%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $1,053,373. The net operating income (NOI) is $2,457,869. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range have a mean of 7.67%. CoStar indicates cap rates from local sales with a mean of 6.68%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018. PAO 2019-00303 Page 4 of 6 reported cap rates from recent sales in 2018 of shopping centers in Naples in the range of 5.80% to 7.60%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.58% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. The NOI of$2,457,869 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$30,723,000 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 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 2019-00303 Page 5 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 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 or actual 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 54-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: $30,812,474. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $16,965,815 for petition# 2017-00303 PET submitted evidence, a 17-page report. However, PET did not present the evidence at the hearing. PET indicated he was not aware the subject property had sold in June 2018. PET indicated he was in agreement with PAO's just value of$30,812,474 for both parcels. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00303: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner chose not to present the evidence they had submitted. 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. 2019-00303 Page 6 of 6 Ed: DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITIONR. 0 17 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00304 Parcel ID 00432960145 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property 8120 ACACIAST The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 39,304,845.00 39,304,845.00 39,304,845.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 39,304,845.00 39,304,845.00 39,304,845.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 39,304,845.00 39,304,845.00 39,304,845.00 4A11 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) Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00304 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00304: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $39,304,845. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as eleven-three story, class C, apartment buildings containing 308 units. The building contains 325,562-sf, the clubhouse is 6,100-sf, community pool with decking and pool cabanas, 11 garages total 19,914-sf. The land size is 774,932-sf or 17.79 acres. The buildings were built in 2014. The property is located at 8120 Acacia Street, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00304 Page 2 of 9 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 80 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 buildings. 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 contains the deed with legal description, photos of the subject property and photos of comparable building sales. Included is supporting income data for multi-family markets in Florida (includes Naples) and the United States for multi-family capitalization rates, and local vacancy rates and rental data. PAO included comparable building sales from CoStar in Collier and Lee Counties; impact fees for the subject, and the 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 10 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Collier County. Sales # 3 and # 7 are the only sales that were vacant at time of sale, all other sales had older improvements, of which the estimated value as well as impact fees were subtracted. The land sales occurred from January 2016 to December 2018. The land sales range in size from 140,699-sf to 1,609,978-sf; the sale price range is $8.72 to $55.19/sf. The mean of all the sales is $19.94/sf and the median is $18.37/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $19.00/sf x 774,932-sf or $14,724,000 rounded. PAO provided a land value based on the number of units. The same land sales were used for the per unit value as the price/sf analyzed above. The sales have buildable units ranging from 102 to 368 units. The price per buildable units ranges from $17,000 to $76,402/unit with a mean of$60,238 and a median of$64,250. PAO reconciled a value at $60,000/unit or $18,480,000 rounded. PAO correlated the land value at $15,000,000. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost with paving, garages, amenities is estimated at $36,249,638, impact fees at $2,781,511, and the land value is estimated at $15,000,000 for a total cost estimate of$54,031,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 8 sales of apartment complexes in Naples. The sales occurred from May 2014 to December 2018. The sales 2019-00304 Page 3 of 9 range in building size from 107,976-sf to 459,232-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 460,429-sf to 1,609,978-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 37.8%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 42%. The buildings were built from 1986 to 2015. The sales range from $113.03 to $184.39/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$155.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$147.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $150.00/sf of building area including land or $48,834,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$423,647 for a value of$48,410,000 rounded. PAO provided a value based on the price per units. The improved sales mentioned above range in value from $93,667 to $218,954 per unit. The mean price per unit is $154,000 and the median price is $156,000. PAO reconciled at $155,000/unit or $47,740,000 rounded, less TPP (tangible personal property) of$423,647 for a value of$47,316,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value of the subject by the Sales Comparison Approach at $48,000,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for market rents in the area of the subject. PAO provided market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors, who indicate asking rents in the range of$1.03 to $1.57/sf/month, with a mean of$1.35 and a median of$1.40/sf/month. CoStar, indicates rents for Collier County at $1.43/sf/month and Lee County at $1.38/sf/month. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$1.08/sf/month. PAO used an average rent of$1,450/unit/month for the 308 units for a potential gross annual (PGI) rent of$5,359,200 or $1.37/sf/month. PAO indicated the PGI is for the apartments only and does not include additional rental fees for garages and pets. PAO provided vacancy support for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 2.30% to 7.10% with an average of 4.84% Information from confidential information from PAO for vacancy rates, is in the range of 3.5% to 6.4% with a mean of 4.66% and a median of 4.3%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 3.33% to 8.15%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $267,960. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various apartments located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) ranges from 24% to 99% with a mean of 55.77%. PAO used an expense ratio of 55% or $2,800,182. 2019-00304 Page 4 of 9 The net operating income (NOI) is $2,291,058. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for multi-family properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Commercial Property Executive and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The average cap rate from these surveys is 5.67%. CoStar for Collier and Lee counties indicate a mean of 6.06%. Confidential information from PAO indicated a cap rate of 6.11%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated cap rates in the range of 3.5% to 6.50% with an average of 5.20% for the 4th Quarter 2018. PAO used a cap rate of 6.3% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of$2,291,058 capitalizes at 7.5% indicates value of$30,547,000 rounded, less TPP of$423,647 indicates a value of$30,123,000 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 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. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just 2019-00304 Page 5 of 9 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 or actual 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 54-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: $39,304,845. PET's agent presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 26-page report which consisted of the Income and expense worksheet, actual income and expense statement for the year 2018, a summary of the subject's amenities, unit features with asking rents for each unit type and a comparable rent survey of 5 apartment complexes similar to the subject showing similar features. A like unit comparison of the subject and the 5 comparables for gross rent, net rent on a per unit basis and on a square foot basis. A graph of market position of the subject as compared to the comparables, graphs depicting 2019-00304 Page 6 of 9 the percentage of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units at the subject and the aggregate market, rent comparison in graph form for the subject as compared with the comparables, form DR 493. PET developed the Income Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided support for market rents in the area of the subject. The asking rents at the subject range from $1,306 to $1832/unit/month with an average of$1,455/month for all units based on the information summary sheet provided by PET. The comparable rents provided have an average monthly rental of$1,332 to $1,926/unit/month. PET used actual rental income received at the subject for the year 2019. The total tenant revenue is $5,025,147 or $1,360/unit/month for the 308 units; other income of$594,993 is added for an effective gross income of$5,620,140. The income is based on actual income received and includes the vacancy for the subject. PET deducted actual operating expenses of$3,582,664 or $1,632/unit or 63.7% of total income of$5,620,140. PET added the real estate taxes of$399,444 for total expenses of $3,985,108. The net operating income (NOI) including taxes is $2,436,920. PET used a cap rate of 8.42% and loaded a mill rate of 1.10373 for a total cap rate of 9.52373% and capitalized the net income of$2,436,920 for a value of$25,587,874. PET deducted 15% cost of sales at $3,838,181 for an indicated value of$21,749,693. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the average rent used by PET in the Income Approach is the lowest asking rent at the subject, the average rent for all the units is $1,455/unit/month, PET used an average rent of$1,360/month. PAO indicated that PAO was not provided the income form garages and pet fees, which PET included as additional income at $594,993. PET used the income generated from 306 units as one unit is used as a model and one unit is occupied by the manager, PAO indicated this is a business decision, but for value purposes the units should be included. PET indicated the Cost Approach is most applicable since the property is 5 years old. The Sales Comparison Approach supports the value. PAO indicated the subject had building permits issued in 2013 for over $37,000,000, not including land value. PAO indicated the current value is well supported. As rebuttal, PET indicated the property owners are experienced in large community apartment management. PET indicated their cap rate (PET) at 9.52% may be on the high side and their value on the low side. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value. PAO developed all three approaches to value with the Income Approach indicating the lowest value. However, 2019-00304 Page 7 of 9 PAO was not provided the additional income from garages and pet fees, which would increase the value by the Income Approach. The Cost Approach is appropriate with the subject being new, only 5 years old. PET provided the Income Approach only based on actual income and not market rents for 306 of the 308 units. PET's operating expenses are considered high at 63.7% of effective gross income. PET's value is understated. 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 2019-00304: 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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 2019-00304 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00304 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00306 Parcel ID 66760010044 Petitioner name TOM SPRADLIN Property 6381 NAPLESBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34109 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 10,402,865.00 10,402,865.00 10,402,865.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,350,768.00 9,350,768.00 9,350,768.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,350,768.00 9,350,768.00 9,350,768.00 *AII 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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/02/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ 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 2019-00306 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00306: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative for the owner of the property, Mr. Tom Spradlin, of Property Tax Solutions, LLC. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $10,402,865. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C retail building, known as Kohl's Department store. The building area is 88,538-sf. the land size is 429,595.55-sf or 9.86 acres. The building was built in 2008. The properties are located at 6381 Naples Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Molina presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00306 Page 2 of 9 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 60 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the 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 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood in close proximity to the subject. PAO indicated there is a lot of development in the neighborhood. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to October 2018. The land sales range in size from 222,156-sf to 818,928-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvement cost ranges from $7.72 to $32.28/sf. The mean of all the sales is $22.92/sf and the median is $22.53/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $18.00/sf x 429,596-sf or $7,733,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $11,147,694, impact fees at $1,623,432, and the land value is estimated at $7,732,728 for a total cost of $20,504,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of Big Box properties in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 30,585-sf to 126,880-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 130,680-sf to 1,017,562-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 10% to 36%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 20.6%. The buildings were built from 1996 to 2016. The sales range from $114.61 to $235.49/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$177.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$207.00/sf of building area including land. Sales # 1,7 and 8 are located in Naples, these sales range in price from $208.74 to $235.42/sf of building area; these three sales are all smaller in building and land size than the subject. PAO reconciled a value at $175.00/sf of building area including land or $15,494,000 rounded. 2019-00306 Page 3 of 9 PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/ sf. CoStar indicates rents for Big Box retail stores in the $10.00/sf range in Naples. Collier County Property Appraiser's confidential report rental data for Big Box properties in Naples in the range of$7.00 to $9.29/sf with an average of$8.43/sf. and neighborhood retail centers have a range of rents from $7.84 to $15.30/sf for large spaces in the centers. The rents range from $7.84 to 15.00/sf PAO used a rent of$15.00/sf for a gross rent of$1,328,070. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at a mean 13.69%. Big Box stores in the US Market and Collier County from Calkain Research, Net Lease Advisors surveys for the end of 2018 for Collier County indicates a vacancy rate of 3%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $66,404. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 13.69%. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% or $315,417. The net operating income (NOI) is $946,250. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and Co Star; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Big Box stores in the US Market and Collier County from Calkain Research, Net Lease Advisors surveys for the end of 2018 for Collier County indicates cap rates in the average range of 5.75% to 6.39%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.3% and loaded the tax rate of 2019-00306 Page 4 of 9 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$946,250 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$12,617,000 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 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 - 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 2019-00306 Page 5 of 9 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 or actual 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 54-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: $10,402,865. PET presented a report containing 131-pages in three reports. The first section consisted of 52 pages and included a cover letter and a sub-lease of a Kohl's property in Hialeah Florida. The size of the space is 106,423-sf and is leased to City Furniture, for a 10-year term at $5.00/sf. The package includes the lease and supporting documents. The second package was 47 pages and consisted of articles on store closures which may top 12,000 closures in 2019, with a list of various stores which have already closed. PET presented information on the standard to small format, where stores are staying the same size and the merchandise selection/assortment and number of fixtures to display the merchandise on the sale floor are reduced, visually the fixtures are spread out farther apart, increasing the aisles and walkways within the departments. Store resizing where the size of the stores have decreased with photos of before and after. PET provided a list of large stores that have closed in Florida from 2014 to present. CoStar property summary report on 8 properties in Florida that have closed and show the current asking rents and asking price/sf. The following package contains 32 pages and is information from the Institute for Professionals in Taxation, 40th Annual Property Tax Symposium. The package includes 2019-00306 Page 6 of 9 the analysis of over 200 sales analyzed on a fee simple vs leased fee, subsequent uses and deed restrictions. These sales are plotted in chart form, as well as charts indicating the difference in value based on leased vs. fee simple. The summary table indicates the fee simple sales at an average sale price of$27.73/sf and the leased fee at $127.03/sf. The package includes the pros and cons of the Income Approach. The pros are that it is not the cost approach, reflects the actions of market participants and the economic cycle. The cons are that there is a lack and quality of data. PET provided, as rebuttal, a summary sheet of market sales in Florida of neighborhood, community and strip shopping centers that sold in 2018. Three centers were located in Naples and had a sale price range of$114.81 to $123.65/sf for centers in the range of 12,496 to 46,252-sf. Ten sales were located in Ft Myers and range in size from 7,793-sf to 72,214-sf and a range in price from $64.41 to $220.31/sf, and a cap rate range from 6.56% to 8%. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET did not provide the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach or Income Approach. PET indicated with his evidence that with the high rate of internet shopping Big Box stores are closing at a fast rate or being repurposed or reduced in size. PET provided CoStar property summary report on 8 properties in Florida that have closed and the current asking rents range from $6.95 to $8.50/sf for space ranging from 60,000 to 95,000-sf. Also, the asking price ranges from $23.04 to $77.14/sf for buildings ranging in size from 72,000 to 100,000-sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that buildings that went dark in Naples in the past 5 years have been subdivided into smaller spaces, or sold to other large users. PAO indicated that Walmart stores are expanding, Publix in Naples Shopping Center has expanded, Albertson's store on Immokalee Road has been remodeled by Oak Farms. PAO indicated that Naples has an older affluent population who shop in stores as well as the internet. PAO indicated that Collier County does not have much commercial land available for development. PAO indicated the location of the subject on Naples Boulevard is one of the best locations having a Costco and Best Buy in close proximity. As rebuttal PET indicated that the cost to demolish and cure these dark stores should be taken into consideration. PET indicated PAO's cap rate is low at 6.3%, PET provided sales in Florida with cap rates ranging from 5.42% to 11%. PAO indicated the cap rate is well supported in their report. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's evidence was from data gathered throughout the state of Florida with little support for 2019-00306 Page 7 of 9 the Naples market. 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 2019-00306: 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 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. 2019-00306 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00306 Page 9 of 9 1 RI DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION F.A.C. Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00307 Parcel ID 57933080001 Petitioner name FREDERICK, ROGER A Property 742 NAUTILUSCT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 638,143.00 638,143.00 638,143.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 638,143.00 638,143.00 638,143.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 638,143.00 638,143.00 638,143.00 *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 ❑ Homestead ❑Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference _ Qualifying improvement ❑ 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 11/01/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2019 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at E AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2019 El 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 2019-00307 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Roger A. Frederick who owns a home at 742 Nautilus Court, Marco Island. The house was built in 1990 and Petitioner lived there with his wife until she passed in 2014. (Frederick) The property enjoyed a homestead exemption from 1990 until it was removed in 2019. This is an appeal of the removal of the homestead exemption. Mr. Frederick attended the hearing, as did the woman with whom he currently lives, Kay Ginn. Petitioner refers to Ms. Ginn as his girlfriend. (Frederick) The Property Appraiser's Office was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions and Customer Service Department and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor for Exemptions Department. All individuals were sworn in. Petitioner presented no documentary evidence. The Property Appraiser's Office ("PAO") offered its Letter Requesting Evidence and an evidence package consisting of 17 pages in support of its removal of the homestead exemption. These documents were admitted without objection and labeled as PAO Exhibit 1 and PAO Composite Exhibit 2, respectively. Petitioner met Ms. Ginn in 2017 and began living with her at her home located at 9397 Napoli Lane, Naples, Florida in August 2017. (Frederick) Petitioner has lived at Ms. Ginn's home since that time. Ms. Ginn suffers from Parkinson's disease and requires some assistance. The only time Petitioner sleeps at the subject property (his Marco Island home) is when his family comes down for vacation. This amounts to roughly six weeks each year. During those visits, Petitioner stays overnight at his home with his family. The subject property remains fully furnished with full service of all utilities. Petitioner continues to use the subject as his home and keeps his personal belongings and property there, including his boat. (Frederick) Petitioner goes to the house once to three times a week to maintain the house and yard, and maintains food and beverages in the refrigerator for his personal use. Petitioner maintains only a suitcase's worth of clothing at Ginn's home. (Frederick) In January 2018, Petitioner called the PAO and spoke to an unknown individual about his situation. He was told that "he was fine." (Frederick) In March 2018, Petitioner completed the homestead questionnaire. (Frederick) Sometime in August, 2018, Petitioner's license expired and when renewing his license he changed his primary address to 9397 Napoli Lane. When the 2019 January Homestead Exemption Receipt was mailed to the subject address, it was returned with a forwarding address of Ginn's home. (PAO Composite Ex. 2, pp.7-8) This prompted a Homestead Questionnaire in March 2019 which was mailed to the subject address. On the questionnaire Petitioner indicated that the change of address was due to the fact that he stayed at "his girlfriend's house most of the time." (PAO Ex. 2, p.7) He also indicated that his absence from the subject property was temporary and that the subject was his legal residence. According to the DMV print out presented by the PAO, his address was changed on both his driver's license and his motor vehicle registration in November 2018 to reflect Ginn's Naples residence. The timing of this change conflicts with Petitioner's testimony but the discrepancy is immaterial as the change occurred in 2018. Petitioner also changed his 2019-00307 Page 2 of 5 voter registration to reflect that he was residing at the Naples property. (PAO Ex. 2, p.17) PAO notified Petitioner on May 17, 2019 by letter that the homestead exemption was being removed due to Petitioner's failure to reside on the property. (PAO Ex. 2, p. 11) This notice set forth the statutory reasons for removal of the exemption in clear and unambiguous terms. Petitioner never intended to abandon the subject property as his home and intended to eventually return to Nautilus Court. (Frederick) Petitioner uses the Nautilus Court address when filing his federal tax return. (PAO Ex. 2, p. 9; Frederick) 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. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the Property Appraiser's removal of the homestead exemption for 2019 was wrong and that Petitioner maintained his permanent residence at 742 Nautilus Way, Marco Island as of January 1, 2019. There is no dispute that Petitioner owns and maintains the property. The question is whether Petitioner's maintenance and use activities qualify this property as permanent residence or demonstrate Petitioner's intent to establish this property as his true, fixed and permanent home and principal establishment, to which he has the intention of returning. Before considering the admitted evidence, the Special Magistrate must determine if the denial notice provided to the taxpayer was valid in accordance with the criteria in s. 196.193(5)(b), Fla. Stat. The May 17, 2019 letter which was admitted into evidence did meet the statutory criteria and is valid in accordance with Florida law. Section 196.015, Fla. Stat., provides a list of non-exclusive factors that the Property 2019-00307 Page 3 of 5 Appraiser may consider when determining whether an applicant for a 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 Petitioner's Florida Driver's license, vehicle registration and voter's registration had been changed to show 9397 Napoli Lane as his residence. (PAO Ex. 2, pp. 12-17) In addition, the PAO relied upon Petitioner's answer to the Homestead Questionnaire that he "was at his girlfriend's house most of the time." Rule 12D-7.007(1), Fla. Admin. Code, states that "for one to make a certain parcel of land his permanent home, he must reside thereon with a present intention of living there indefinitely and with no present intention of moving therefrom."Although the language "and reside thereon" was removed from the homestead exemption provision in both the Florida Constitution and s.196.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat., these provisions still require that the owner maintain a "permanent residence" on the property. At issue in this case is the interpretation of"permanent residence." Florida law requires that exemptions from the legal obligation of taxes be strictly construed. Capital City Country Club, Inc. v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 448, 452 (Fla. 1993), affd in part, 101 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 2012). And, when interpreting a statute, courts are required to give words their plain and ordinary meaning. "Residence" is defined in part as "bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place." Residence, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary both define "residence" as "[t]he place in which one lives; the act or fact of dwelling in a place for some time or the act of living or regularly staying at or in the same place. And the term "reside" is defined as "to dwell permanently or continuously." Thus, the plain and ordinary understanding of the word "residence" means "a dwelling" in which one has inhabits or lives. It is hard to imagine that one can "reside" or "live" in a home without sleeping there. See also Baldwin v. Henriquez, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2311 (Fla. 2d DCA September 13, 2019)(Court held that taxpayers were not entitled to a homestead exemption because they did not maintain their permanent residence on the property until they moved onto the subject property and physically occupied the house on that property.) Petitioner testified that he only slept there when the home was being used by his children for vacation. The occasional use of the subject property for purposes of sharing vacation time with Petitioner's children and grandchildren fails to qualify as residing on the property. This fact, coupled with the designation of Ginn's property as his primary residence for his driver's license, voter's registration and motor vehicle registration outweighed any evidence that the subject property constituted Petitioner's permanent residence. Petitioner's testimony that he intended to return to the subject at some indefinite time in the future, the use of the Nautilus Way as his legal address for purposes of his federal income tax return, and his continuous and frequent maintenance of the home, including the keeping of his personal belongings, was credible and relevant evidence that he 2019-00307 Page 4 of 5 maintained a permanent residence. These facts, however, could not overcome the fact that he did not occupy the home regularly. The overall weight of the credible and relevant evidence was insufficient to meet Petitioner's burden of proof. The greater weight of the evidence was with the PAO and supported the removal of the homestead exemption. Therefore, the Special Magistrate recommends that Petition 307 be denied. 2019-00307 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00309 Parcel ID 63045039167 Petitioner name JOHN MCDONALD Property 14612 REGATTA LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34114 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 121 Granted your petition ❑ 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 549,816.00 549,816.00 441,700.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 549,816.00 549,816.00 441,700.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 549,816.00 549,816.00 441,700.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/08/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiln ❑ 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 2019-00309 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00309: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $549,816. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,621-sf and an adjusted building size of 3,278-sf. The adjusted size accounts 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 .25 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 85.82 ft. The building was built in 2018. Amenities include a pool and spa, which were not built as of January 1, 2019 and are not included in the just value. The subject property sold November 29, 2018 for $441,700 and was occupied as of January 1, 2019. The property is located at 14612 Regatta Lane, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Molina presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 2019-00309 Page 2 of 6 about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO, Mr. Straruch presented a report containing 33 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definitions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, location map, photos and aerial of the subject and floor plan sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos and floor plan sketch of the comparable sales, PAO included the property record card for the subject property. 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 in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in subject development. PAO subtracted the estimated cost of the new improvements in order to arrive at a land value; this development does not sell vacant lots, rather sells a package of land and building. PAO's land sales occurred from February 2018 to December 2018. The land sales range from 79.5 to 98.89 FF. The sale prices range is $1,716 to $3,950/FF. PAO reconciled the land value at $2,400/FF or $195,670. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are included in the cost of the depreciated building and the total cost of improvements is estimated at $417,331, the land value is estimated at $195,670 indicates a value of$613,001. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 4 improved sales in the neighborhood, including the sale of the subject. The sales occurred from February 2018 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 3,278-sf to 3,339-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 79.5 FF to 85.82 FF. The buildings were built in 2018. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $131.00 to $197.00/sf of building area including land with a mid-range of$173.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $173.00/sf of building area including land or $567,000 rounded. PET's evidence consisted of 4 pages of a portion of the purchase and sales agreement with the settlement pages for the sale. PET also included a 102-page report which consists of a cover letter, DR-493 form, letter from Phipps & Howell law firm to John Wood dated March 26, 2013 on just value and fair market value, subject property 2019-00309 Page 3 of 6 summary from Collier County web site, an email authorizing the tax appeal, the purchase and sales agreement, settlement statement and an inspection report on the property. PET included a two-page rebuttal. All of PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject is a spec home made to order. The owner indicated the subject is a base house with no upgrades. PET indicated many PAO's sales all include upgrades and this is reflected in the higher price that was paid. PET indicated the purchases price of the subject is the best indication of value. PET estimated value: $441,700. 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. 193.011outlines 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 2019-00309 Page 4 of 6 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 - 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 54-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. As rebuttal, PAO indicted properties in the development have different price points depending on the lot size and all PAO's sales have similar lot sizes. PAO indicated PET did not provide evidence that the subject had no upgrades. PAO indicated the subject sale is low in comparison to sales of similar houses in the neighborhood. As rebuttal, PET indicated the sale of the subject and PAO's improved sale # 2 are the best comparables for indication of value. These 2 sales are in the range of$131 to $135/ sf of building area including land and well within the range of the price paid for the property. 2019-00309 Page 5 of 6 SM reviewed the evidence, PAO's improved sales # 1 and 2 are the best indication of value and these sales range from $131 to $135/sf of building area or $429,418 to $442,530. The best indication of value is the sale price of the subject at $441,700 PET demonstrated that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00309: 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 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 has overcome the presumption of correctness because PAO's value is overstated and does not represent the just value of the property. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of$441,700. 2019-00309 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V a R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00316 Parcel ID 17011560001 Petitioner name GENTRY, BRYAN R, &SONJA LEIGHANN 6 Property 1511 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: IZ1 taxpayer of record [' taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12,546,492.00 12,546,492.00 12,546,492.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,546,492.00 12,546,492.00 12,546,492.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,496,492.00 12,496,492.00 12,496,492.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00316 Page 1 of 1 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00317 Parcel ID 01880760006 Petitioner name JOSHUA M. BIALEK Property 1825 GORDONDRE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34102 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 4,063,251.00 4,063,251.00 3,750,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,396,561.00 3,396,561.00 3,396,561.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,396,561.00 3,396,561.00 3,396,561.00 *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 11/25/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/26/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00317 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00317: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and the Representative's for the Petitioner Mr. Bialek and Sara White. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and petitioner were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of$4.063,251. 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 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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 sales in the community. The petitioner provided an appraisal as evidence and the petitioner's own evidence. Weight was placed on a Cost Of Sale adjustment to a market value appraisal of $3,750,000 which was considered and recognized in the PAO's market valuation of the property. 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 2019-00317 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 54- 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 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. 2019-00317 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00317: 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 failed 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 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$3,750,000. 2019-00317 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00319 Parcel ID 57379160006 Petitioner name ANGILERI, VICTOR A & LISA A Property 1076 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: WI taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 840,631.00 840,631.00 760,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 700,543.00 700,543.00 700,543.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 700,543.00 700,543.00 700,543.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/08/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ 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 2019-00319 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00319: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioners (PET) were the owners of the property Victor and Lisa Angileri and their representative who appraised the property, Mr. Burkhard Klein. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $840,631. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,001-sf and an adjusted building size of 2,676-sf. The adjusted size accounts 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 .20 acres with frontage footage (FF) of 80 feet. The property was built in 2010. The property is located at 1076 San Marco Road, Marco Island FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Molina presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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. 2019-00319 Page 2 of 7 PAO, Mr. Straruch 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, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definitions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, location map, photos and aerial of the subject and floor plan sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos and floor plan sketch of the comparable sales, PAO included the property record card for the subject property. 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 in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are vacant land sales occurred from July 2018 to September 2018. The land sales range from 80 FF to 87.76 FF, the subject has 80 FF. The sale price range is $8,048 to $8,310/FF. PAO reconciled the land value at $8,200/FF or $577,280. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $10,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $354,871, the land value is estimated at $577,280 for a total cost of $942,151. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2018 to July 2018. The sales range in building size from 1854-sf to 3,304-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .20 to .25 acres and 80 to 100 FF. The buildings were built from 1982 to 2003. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $331.00 to $384.00/sf of building area including land with a mid-range of$360.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $360/sf of building area including land or $963,000 rounded. PET's evidence consisted of a 23-page report, a 15-page report and rebuttal evidence was 13 pages. The 23-page report is an appraisal completed by Mr. Klein on the subject property dated January 1, 2019. The appraisal is a residential appraisal summary report form and contains a cover page with a photo of the subject, highest and best use, details of the subject and neighborhood, three comparable sales, the cost approach, supplemental addendum, building sketch, photos of the subject (interior and exterior), photos and details of the comparable sales, location map of the subject and sales, aerial, assumption and limiting conditions, appraiser's certification and license. PET provided 15-pages of comparative market analysis and included 12 sales of single- 2019-00319 Page 3 of 7 family dwellings that sold in the year 2018 and 2019. PET provided rebuttal evidence of 13-pages which included a graph of median sale prices from 2015-2019, an aerial of the subject, aerials of POA's sales 1 and 2 with property details sheets, and an aerial of PET's sales in relation to the subject. All of PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. The appraisal presented in PET's package contains 3 sales. The sales occurred from May 2018 to October 2018. The sales range in building size from 1,785-sf to 2,327-sf; the land size for all these sales including the subject is 8,712-sf. The buildings range in age from 7 to 18 years old, the subject is 9 years old. Adjustments were made to some of the sales as compared to the subject for age, quality of construction, room count, building area, pool, dock and lift. The adjusted sales range from $734,500 to $793,000 or $315.64 to $444.70/sf of building area including land. PET reconciled a value of$757,000 or $378.3 1/sf based on an area of 2,001-sf. PET's cost approach includes 3 land sales. The sales took place from May 2018 to August 2018. The sales range in size from 8,712 to 10,454-sf and sold in the range of $304,000 to $320,000. Pet reconciled the land value at $314,000. PET estimated the depreciated cost of the building at $419,092, site improvements are estimated at $35,000, the land at $314,000 for a total of$768,092. PET estimated value: $760,000. 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 2019-00319 Page 4 of 7 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 54-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. 2019-00319 Page 5 of 7 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the comparable sales were chosen based on the neighborhood and values within the subject neighborhood for land and improved sales. Two good sales are located in close proximity to the subject and one south of the subject. PET used sales located south of the subject in a different neighborhood. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's land sales are in superior locations with wider canal views and are located closer to the Gulf of Mexico; the subject is located farther from the Gulf and takes longer to access. PET used land sales closer to the subject with similar views and access to the Gulf. PET indicated PAO's improved sale # 5 has a better view than the subject and is in a superior location; PAO made no location adjustment. PAO's sale # 4 is located in close proximity to the subject, however has a better view and larger water frontage than the subject, PAO made no adjustment. PET indicated that all, except one, of PAO's improved sales are located north of the subject in better locations with faster access to the Gulf. PET indicated the dock was damaged during the hurricane and replaced, however the lift was not replaced. PET provided good land sales with similar attributes to the subject. PAO's land sale estimate is considered overstated at $577,280. PET provided improved sales in close proximity to the subject with similar distance to the Gulf of Mexico, the subject is also located on a busy street, and PAO's sales are not on busy streets and located closer to the Gulf. PET demonstrated that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00319: 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 by showing that the PAO's assessed value: 2019-00319 Page 6 of 7 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 has overcome the presumption of correctness because PAO's value is overstated and does not represent the just value of the property. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of$760,000. 2019-00319 Page 7 of 7 111 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00340 Parcel ID 00156920005 Petitioner name GEORGE MANTZIDIS, ESQ. Property 793 WALKERBILTRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,908,804.00 3,908,804.00 3,908,804.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,558,201.00 1,558,201.00 1,558,201.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,558,201.00 1,558,201.00 1,558,201.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/17/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00340 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00340: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by George Mantzidis, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an 80-unit mobile home/RV park built in 1948 & 1967. The development is also an 'over 55' adult rental community. The subject's address is 793 Walkerbilt Road in Naples. There are 80 units situated upon a site of 296,208 SF (i.e. 6.80 acres). [Note: Apparently there are 70 mobile home lots, plus 10 RV lots; thus, the subject will be referred to as having 80 `units' or `lots' in this ruling. The subject also has some boat slips available.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last five years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. [Note: This especially applies to the PET's evidence.] The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,908,804, or $48,860/lot. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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 (corporation to corporation) conveyance of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, aerial photo, location map, zoning map, subject sketch of buildings, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, Sales Comparison grid/comp photos, Income Approach, photographs of buildings and wet slips/dockage, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, `Mobile Home & RV Park Data' exhibit with cap rates, and subject's impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I did accept rebuttal evidence from the PAO consisting of 4 aerial photographs [from various county web sites] associated with the 4 sales on page 37 of the PET's appraisal submitted. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $700,000/acre, plus $975,203 of impact fees for a total of$5,735,203 (which is 147% of the total assessment). The land 2019-00340 Page 2 of 5 value estimate was based upon the 8 land sale indicators, with #1, 2, 7 & 8 serving as actual land sales. The remaining 4 are `residual' indicators, which are normally given less weight. 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 ($67,947) & site improvements/paving at $27,056, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$5,830,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. The PAO could have also considered lease-up costs (to achieve stabilization) and entrepreneurial profit in this approach. Regardless, I give this approach little weight, due to the dispersion of land sales indicators and some of dissimilar conditions. Also, some the H&BU of some of the land indicators differs from the H&BU of the subject. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 7 sales in the greater Naples area that date back to late 2011 . The sales have $/lot indicators that range from $28,998-$75,209/lot, with an average of$42,366/lot. The PAO gives most weight to Sales #2 ($67,797/lot) and Sale #4 ($75,209/lot). The PAO concludes $60,000/lot X 80 lots = $4,800,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $600/lot/month gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 5%, expenses at 50%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to NOI of $273,600 for a value indication of$3,337,000, or $41,712.50/unit (before COS consideration). The PAO does not explore or quantify if any dock rental is also warranted, given the subject does have many dock slips. The PAO apparently was never supplied with any historical operating information from the subject, as was requested of all commercial property owners (twice) via US mail during 2019. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 61 (57 + 4) pages into evidence in advance of the hearing via two submittals. The PET also submitted 7 pages of rebuttal evidence that I accepted at the hearing. The PET's main focal point of evidence relates to a "restricted use" appraisal prepared with an effective date of October 2, 2019. For a variety of reasons, that report and its VALUE CONCLUSION IS NOT CREDABLE and it is not appropriate for use at this hearing. However, the 4 improved mobile home/RV park sales noted on page 37 of that appraisal are considered relevant and credible sales evidence for this hearing. Those four sales lend support for the PAO's subject's just value. In particular, Sale #3 in Winter Haven appears to have boat slips (like the subject) and it results in an adjusted price of $59,168/lot (or space). The subject's assessment/lot is $48,860, which is 82.6% of that adjusted value indicator. It is also noted that 3 of the 4 fully adjusted indicators on page 37 of that report exceed the subject's $48,860/lot indicator. The key piece of evidence (i.e. the appraisal submitted by the PET) is rejected, other than those sales. By law (and USPAP), a `restricted use' appraisal is not to be relied upon by 3rd parties. The VAB is a 3rd party. The retrospective effective date of that report should have been 1/1/2019, not 10/2/2019. The definition of `market value' should not be the normal (FIRREA) definition used for federally insured bank assignments. [Note: This ruling is not considered a Standard 3 `review' of the fee appraiser's work product, as would normally be required by USPAP. My comments related to that appraisal in this ruling are only 2019-00340 Page 3 of 5 intended to demonstrate a few major issues that make its value conclusion irrelevant for consideration.] In reference to the PET's rebuttal evidence, it is noted the PET provided 6 pages of 'Mass Appraisal Development' information from the 2018-19 Edition of USPAP. The PET also included a summary of the PAO's land sales, then tries to argue the land portion of the total assessments differ. The PET was advised that temporary hurricane adjustments for assessment relief may have been applied to some of those assessment comps. It is not appropriate to compare the `land' (or `building') portions of different assessments, as the ENTIRE assessments are what should be compared if trying to argue. I do tend to agree with the PET that the zoning (and/or intended use or H&BU) of some of the PAO's sales are less than ideal for comparison with the subject. This is why I do not give the PAO's Cost Approach much weight. The PAO is required to CONSIDER all applicable approaches to value, but the PAO is not required to USE all approaches to value. The PAO does not have to weigh all approaches he uses the same. I also do not weigh the approaches used by either party the same. RULING: 1.While various technical aspects of the PAO's presentation could have used some refinements to consider other factors (such as the dock slips), the PAO's assessment appears reasonable, based upon the greater weight of RV & mobile home park sales submitted by the PAO (in establishing the presumption of correctness), yet also by PET with the introduction of additional sales [on page 37 of the appraisal] outside Collier County that further support the contested just value. 2. In the PET's October 22, 2019 letter to the VAB, some arguments are made. While it is noted the 2019 just value increased 176% (i.e. $1,416,546) from 2018, there is no cap on the `just' value increase that is the focal point of this hearing (however, there is a cap on the `assessed' value). In reference to the PET's discussions related to re-zoning, costs of relocation, demolition costs, & time delays, those are items not `H&BU as improved' conclusions of the PAO or the fee appraiser. Therefore, there is no need to get into hypothetical issues that are not relevant. No party to the hearing is suggesting a change in use. As for the `legal, non-conforming use' associated with the unit (i.e. lot) count, that appears to be correct. However, the PAO valued the land on a 'per acre' basis, not on a `price per planned lot' (or legal lot) basis. The PAO should have noted the subject is a `legal, non-conforming use'; however, that does not materially impact this ruling or the subject's `H&BU as improved'. 3.The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00340: 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 2019-00340 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00340 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485? R. 0 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00347 Parcel ID 07040000607 Petitioner name THOMAS D FLANAGAN JR Property 2975 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,829,195.00 3,829,195.00 3,829,195.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,937,251.00 2,937,251.00 2,937,251.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,937,251.00 2,937,251.00 2,937,251.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ 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 2019-00347 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00347: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Helios Colliers, LLC.) was represented by Mr. Kyle Sheehan. Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 7 structures. Some are office buildings, while the rest are flex/industrial/office buildings constructed in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986 & 1990. The subject's address is 2960, 2975 & 3030 South Horseshoe Drive & 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area of all 7 buildings is 189,424 SF situated upon a site of 4 parcels that equal 645,559 SF (i.e. 14.82 acres). NOTE: TP-347, 348, 349, & 350 are being heard together. The subject buildings are under the same ownership, use the same management firm, and their financials are comingled. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$18,324,624 or $97/SF of adjusted building area. It is noted that the subject's combined just value increased 40.1% (i.e. $5,245,043) from 2018. The subject has "BP" (Business Park) zoning. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's 2008 warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar office and industrial lease comps/rental rates/data, PwC `Overall Cap Rate Analysis' & 'ENC Region Warehouse Market' articles, RERC rates (4th Quarter 2018), and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $24.10/SF, or $1,050,000/acre. Thus, the land value is $15,561,000 plus $1,194,057 of impact fees for a total of $16,755,495 (which is 91.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. There were 9 `residuals' that are given less weight, yet they are reasonably consistent with the two actual land sales provided (#10 @ $1,092,308/acre & #11 @ $1,026,235/acre). Land sale #10 is extremely close to the subject. The PAO only provides relatively small site sales, yet the subject has a site area of 14.82 acres. 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 $5,800,495 & site improvements/paving at $716,099, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$23,272,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. 2019-00347 Page 2 of 5 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.20-$288.33/SF, with a mean of$161/SF. The PAO concludes $125/SF X 189,424 SF = $23,678,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Sales #6 ($138.90/SF), #9 ($147.74/SF a shell building storing cars), & #11 ($139.48/SF), are in close proximity to the subject. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross for the office space (50,585 SF), $17/SF gross for the flex space (138,839 SF), vacancy/collection loss at 8.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to the NOI. NOTE: THE PAO'S MATH IS WRONG. The PAO's PGI of$3,624,888 is correct, 8% vacancy is a deduct of $289,991, resulting in EGI of$3,334,897. Expenses of 30% equates to $1,000,469 (i.e. $5.28/SF), resulting in NOI of$2,334,428 (not $1,520,009). After applying the loaded 8.2% cap rate to the corrected NOI, the corrected Income Approach value is $28,469,000, or $150.29/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing via all 3 approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 89 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Income Approach only. The PET provides market income exhibit, CoStar subject listing reports, cap rate data, and expense data. Unfortunately, the PET did not have a rent roll or historical profit & loss statement. The PET seeks a value reduction to $12,287,635, which is almost $8M less than the last sales price of the subject in 2008, and 73.3% of the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon $14.60/SF, 10% vacancy, 46.2% ($6.06/SF) expenses (includes reserves), and a loaded cap rate of 9.28% (i.e. 8.25% + 1.03% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$12,287,365 (after a 15% COS deduction is made). The PET includes actual CoStar listings for the subject. THE PET'S IMPROVED SALES While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing market supported cap rates from numerous sales. That data (in general) better supports the PAO's unloaded cap rate of 7.17%). Unfortunately for the PET, the Collier sales provided "$/SF" indicators in five different sales sheets (see PET's evidence pages 30, 43, 55, 67, & 79). The subject's assessment equates to $96.74/SF. As noted by the PAO during the hearing, the mixture of Collier & Lee County sales in those sheets tend to support two findings: a.) the Collier Sales tend to be higher than the Lee sales, and b.) the majority the Collier sales appear supportive of$/SF indicators well beyond $96.74/SF, with ample COS consideration. As just one example, PET's page 30 has a roster of 18 sales that closed during 2017 - 2019, but #7 & #18 are in Lee County; thus, they are disregarded. Of the remaining 16 I will disregard the highest & lowest indicators as potential outliers. That leaves 14 Collier sales that range form $94 - $191/SF, with an average of$138/SF. RULING: 1. The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. The market has substantially (if not fully) recovered from the prior recession. Thus, a just value of$18,324,624 is not totally unusual, given steadily improving economic and real estate conditions. While it may be 2019-00347 Page 3 of 5 true the subject's assessment increased 40.1% ($5,245,403) from 2018, it is probable the subject had been underassessed in prior years. That does not mean the 2019 assessment is excessive just because there was a significant increase. 2.While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing a substantial amount of Collier sales data that is supportive if the subject's just value of$96.74/SF. A substantial number of sales in PET's evidence are supportive of the assessment, at least from a cursory review of the rosters provided. The PAO also has ample improved sales to support the assessment. 3.The PAO sent out two mailings to commercial/industrial property owners during 2019 requesting financial information to assist in the assessment process. If the subject's owner thinks he is being over-assessed, he should share actual operating data with the PAO during 2020, and possibly the PAO can make adjustments to the subject's next assessment. 4.The PAO's land value of$24. 10/SF seems as though it could be reasonable; however, the subject site has 14.82 acres and none of the residuals or land sales were larger than 3.24 acres. There was no good evidence in the record for larger site sales. The PAO's Cost Approach should have included entrepreneurial profit (easily 15% of the construction costs) and lease-up costs to get to stabilization (likely $1M, or more). Thus, if the land value were as low as $18.50/SF, 15% entrepreneurial profit were considered, and $1M in lease-up costs were included to get stabilized, the assessment still would be upheld with sufficient room for 15% COS consideration. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. In fact, some of the PET's own evidence helps to support the PAO's assessment. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00347: 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 2019-00347 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00347 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR 041517 VALUE PETITION Rule 121D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00348 Parcel ID 07040002003 Petitioner name THOMAS D FLANAGAN JR Property 3050 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 6,641,309.00 6,641,309.00 6,641,309.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,328,693.00 5,328,693.00 5,328,693.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,328,693.00 5,328,693.00 5,328,693.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00348 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00348: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Helios Colliers, LLC.) was represented by Mr. Kyle Sheehan. Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 7 structures. Some are office buildings, while the rest are flex/industrial/office buildings constructed in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986 & 1990. The subject's address is 2960, 2975 & 3030 South Horseshoe Drive & 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area of all 7 buildings is 189,424 SF situated upon a site of 4 parcels that equal 645,559 SF (i.e. 14.82 acres). NOTE: TP-347, 348, 349, & 350 are being heard together. The subject buildings are under the same ownership, use the same management firm, and their financials are comingled. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$18,324,624 or $97/SF of adjusted building area. It is noted that the subject's combined just value increased 40.1% (i.e. $5,245,043) from 2018. The subject has "BP" (Business Park) zoning. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's 2008 warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar office and industrial lease comps/rental rates/data, PwC `Overall Cap Rate Analysis' & 'ENC Region Warehouse Market' articles, RERC rates (4th Quarter 2018), and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $24.10/SF, or $1,050,000/acre. Thus, the land value is $15,561,000 plus $1,194,057 of impact fees for a total of $16,755,495 (which is 91.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. There were 9 `residuals' that are given less weight, yet they are reasonably consistent with the two actual land sales provided (#10 @ $1,092,308/acre & #11 @ $1,026,235/acre). Land sale #10 is extremely close to the subject. The PAO only provides relatively small site sales, yet the subject has a site area of 14.82 acres. 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 $5,800,495 & site improvements/paving at $716,099, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$23,272,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. 2019-00348 Page 2 of 5 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.20-$288.33/SF, with a mean of$161/SF. The PAO concludes $125/SF X 189,424 SF = $23,678,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Sales #6 ($138.90/SF), #9 ($147.74/SF a shell building storing cars), & #11 ($139.48/SF), are in close proximity to the subject. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross for the office space (50,585 SF), $17/SF gross for the flex space (138,839 SF), vacancy/collection loss at 8.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to the NOI. NOTE: THE PAO'S MATH IS WRONG. The PAO's PGI of$3,624,888 is correct, 8% vacancy is a deduct of$289,991, resulting in EGI of$3,334,897. Expenses of 30% equates to $1,000,469 (i.e. $5.28/SF), resulting in NOI of$2,334,428 (not $1,520,009). After applying the loaded 8.2% cap rate to the corrected NOI, the corrected Income Approach value is $28,469,000, or $150.29/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing via all 3 approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 89 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Income Approach only. The PET provides market income exhibit, CoStar subject listing reports, cap rate data, and expense data. Unfortunately, the PET did not have a rent roll or historical profit & loss statement. The PET seeks a value reduction to $12,287,635, which is almost $8M less than the last sales price of the subject in 2008, and 73.3% of the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon $14.60/SF, 10% vacancy, 46.2% ($6.06/SF) expenses (includes reserves), and a loaded cap rate of 9.28% (i.e. 8.25% + 1.03% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$12,287,365 (after a 15% COS deduction is made). The PET includes actual CoStar listings for the subject. THE PET'S IMPROVED SALES While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing market supported cap rates from numerous sales. That data (in general) better supports the PAO's unloaded cap rate of 7.17%). Unfortunately for the PET, the Collier sales provided "$/SF" indicators in five different sales sheets (see PET's evidence pages 30, 43, 55, 67, & 79). The subject's assessment equates to $96.74/SF. As noted by the PAO during the hearing, the mixture of Collier & Lee County sales in those sheets tend to support two findings: a.) the Collier Sales tend to be higher than the Lee sales, and b.) the majority the Collier sales appear supportive of$/SF indicators well beyond $96.74/SF, with ample COS consideration. As just one example, PET's page 30 has a roster of 18 sales that closed during 2017 - 2019, but #7 & #18 are in Lee County; thus, they are disregarded. Of the remaining 16 I will disregard the highest & lowest indicators as potential outliers. That leaves 14 Collier sales that range form $94 - $191/SF, with an average of$138/SF. RULING: 1. The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. The market has substantially (if not fully) recovered from the prior recession. Thus, a just value of$18,324,624 is not totally unusual, given steadily improving economic and real estate conditions. While it may be 2019-00348 Page 3 of 5 true the subject's assessment increased 40.1% ($5,245,403) from 2018, it is probable the subject had been underassessed in prior years. That does not mean the 2019 assessment is excessive just because there was a significant increase. 2.While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing a substantial amount of Collier sales data that is supportive if the subject's just value of$96.74/SF. A substantial number of sales in PET's evidence are supportive of the assessment, at least from a cursory review of the rosters provided. The PAO also has ample improved sales to support the assessment. 3.The PAO sent out two mailings to commercial/industrial property owners during 2019 requesting financial information to assist in the assessment process. If the subject's owner thinks he is being over-assessed, he should share actual operating data with the PAO during 2020, and possibly the PAO can make adjustments to the subject's next assessment. 4.The PAO's land value of$24. 10/SF seems as though it could be reasonable; however, the subject site has 14.82 acres and none of the residuals or land sales were larger than 3.24 acres. There was no good evidence in the record for larger site sales. The PAO's Cost Approach should have included entrepreneurial profit (easily 15% of the construction costs) and lease-up costs to get to stabilization (likely $1M, or more). Thus, if the land value were as low as $18.50/SF, 15% entrepreneurial profit were considered, and $1M in lease-up costs were included to get stabilized, the assessment still would be upheld with sufficient room for 15% COS consideration. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. In fact, some of the PET's own evidence helps to support the PAO's assessment. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00348: 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 2019-00348 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00348 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00349 Parcel ID 07040002605 Petitioner name THOMAS D FLANAGAN JR Property 3030 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z. Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,663,343.00 2,663,343.00 2,663,343.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,053,215.00 2,053,215.00 2,053,215.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,053,215.00 2,053,215.00 2,053,215.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00349 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00349: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Helios Colliers, LLC.) was represented by Mr. Kyle Sheehan. Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 7 structures. Some are office buildings, while the rest are flex/industrial/office buildings constructed in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986 & 1990. The subject's address is 2960, 2975 & 3030 South Horseshoe Drive & 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area of all 7 buildings is 189,424 SF situated upon a site of 4 parcels that equal 645,559 SF (i.e. 14.82 acres). NOTE: TP-347, 348, 349, & 350 are being heard together. The subject buildings are under the same ownership, use the same management firm, and their financials are comingled. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$18,324,624 or $97/SF of adjusted building area. It is noted that the subject's combined just value increased 40.1% (i.e. $5,245,043) from 2018. The subject has "BP" (Business Park) zoning. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's 2008 warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar office and industrial lease comps/rental rates/data, PwC `Overall Cap Rate Analysis' & 'ENC Region Warehouse Market' articles, RERC rates (4th Quarter 2018), and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $24.10/SF, or $1,050,000/acre. Thus, the land value is $15,561,000 plus $1,194,057 of impact fees for a total of $16,755,495 (which is 91.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. There were 9 `residuals' that are given less weight, yet they are reasonably consistent with the two actual land sales provided (#10 @ $1,092,308/acre & #11 @ $1,026,235/acre). Land sale #10 is extremely close to the subject. The PAO only provides relatively small site sales, yet the subject has a site area of 14.82 acres. 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 $5,800,495 & site improvements/paving at $716,099, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$23,272,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. 2019-00349 Page 2 of 5 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.20-$288.33/SF, with a mean of$161/SF. The PAO concludes $125/SF X 189,424 SF = $23,678,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Sales #6 ($138.90/SF), #9 ($147.74/SF a shell building storing cars), & #11 ($139.48/SF), are in close proximity to the subject. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross for the office space (50,585 SF), $17/SF gross for the flex space (138,839 SF), vacancy/collection loss at 8.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to the NOI. NOTE: THE PAO'S MATH IS WRONG. The PAO's PGI of$3,624,888 is correct, 8% vacancy is a deduct of$289,991, resulting in EGI of$3,334,897. Expenses of 30% equates to $1,000,469 (i.e. $5.28/SF), resulting in NOI of$2,334,428 (not $1,520,009). After applying the loaded 8.2% cap rate to the corrected NOI, the corrected Income Approach value is $28,469,000, or $150.29/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing via all 3 approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 89 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Income Approach only. The PET provides market income exhibit, CoStar subject listing reports, cap rate data, and expense data. Unfortunately, the PET did not have a rent roll or historical profit & loss statement. The PET seeks a value reduction to $12,287,635, which is almost $8M less than the last sales price of the subject in 2008, and 73.3% of the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon $14.60/SF, 10% vacancy, 46.2% ($6.06/SF) expenses (includes reserves), and a loaded cap rate of 9.28% (i.e. 8.25% + 1.03% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$12,287,365 (after a 15% COS deduction is made). The PET includes actual CoStar listings for the subject. THE PET'S IMPROVED SALES While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing market supported cap rates from numerous sales. That data (in general) better supports the PAO's unloaded cap rate of 7.17%). Unfortunately for the PET, the Collier sales provided "$/SF" indicators in five different sales sheets (see PET's evidence pages 30, 43, 55, 67, & 79). The subject's assessment equates to $96.74/SF. As noted by the PAO during the hearing, the mixture of Collier & Lee County sales in those sheets tend to support two findings: a.) the Collier Sales tend to be higher than the Lee sales, and b.) the majority the Collier sales appear supportive of$/SF indicators well beyond $96.74/SF, with ample COS consideration. As just one example, PET's page 30 has a roster of 18 sales that closed during 2017 - 2019, but #7 & #18 are in Lee County; thus, they are disregarded. Of the remaining 16 I will disregard the highest & lowest indicators as potential outliers. That leaves 14 Collier sales that range form $94 - $191/SF, with an average of$13 8/SF. RULING: 1. The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. The market has substantially (if not fully) recovered from the prior recession. Thus, a just value of$18,324,624 is not totally unusual, given steadily improving economic and real estate conditions. While it may be 2019-00349 Page 3 of 5 true the subject's assessment increased 40. 1% ($5,245,403) from 2018, it is probable the subject had been underassessed in prior years. That does not mean the 2019 assessment is excessive just because there was a significant increase. 2.While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing a substantial amount of Collier sales data that is supportive if the subject's just value of$96.74/SF. A substantial number of sales in PET's evidence are supportive of the assessment, at least from a cursory review of the rosters provided. The PAO also has ample improved sales to support the assessment. 3.The PAO sent out two mailings to commercial/industrial property owners during 2019 requesting financial information to assist in the assessment process. If the subject's owner thinks he is being over-assessed, he should share actual operating data with the PAO during 2020, and possibly the PAO can make adjustments to the subject's next assessment. 4.The PAO's land value of$24.10/SF seems as though it could be reasonable; however, the subject site has 14.82 acres and none of the residuals or land sales were larger than 3.24 acres. There was no good evidence in the record for larger site sales. The PAO's Cost Approach should have included entrepreneurial profit (easily 15% of the construction costs) and lease-up costs to get to stabilization (likely $1M, or more). Thus, if the land value were as low as $18.50/SF, 15% entrepreneurial profit were considered, and $1M in lease-up costs were included to get stabilized, the assessment still would be upheld with sufficient room for 15% COS consideration. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. In fact, some of the PET's own evidence helps to support the PAO's assessment. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00349: 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 2019-00349 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00349 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00350 Parcel ID 07040002702 Petitioner name THOMAS D FLANAGAN JR Property 2960 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [✓ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 5,190,787.00 5,190,787.00 5,190,787.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,067,985.00 4,067,985.00 4,067,985.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,067,985.00 4,067,985.00 4,067,985.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ 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 2019-00350 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00350: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Helios Colliers, LLC.) was represented by Mr. Kyle Sheehan. Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 7 structures. Some are office buildings, while the rest are flex/industrial/office buildings constructed in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986 & 1990. The subject's address is 2960, 2975 & 3030 South Horseshoe Drive & 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area of all 7 buildings is 189,424 SF situated upon a site of 4 parcels that equal 645,559 SF (i.e. 14.82 acres). NOTE: TP-347, 348, 349, & 350 are being heard together. The subject buildings are under the same ownership, use the same management firm, and their financials are comingled. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$18,324,624 or $97/SF of adjusted building area. It is noted that the subject's combined just value increased 40.1% (i.e. $5,245,043) from 2018. The subject has "BP" (Business Park) zoning. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's 2008 warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar office and industrial lease comps/rental rates/data, PwC `Overall Cap Rate Analysis' & 'ENC Region Warehouse Market' articles, RERC rates (4th Quarter 2018), and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $24.10/SF, or $1,050,000/acre. Thus, the land value is $15,561,000 plus $1,194,057 of impact fees for a total of $16,755,495 (which is 91.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. There were 9 `residuals' that are given less weight, yet they are reasonably consistent with the two actual land sales provided (#10 @ $1,092,308/acre & #11 @ $1,026,235/acre). Land sale #10 is extremely close to the subject. The PAO only provides relatively small site sales, yet the subject has a site area of 14.82 acres. 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 $5,800,495 & site improvements/paving at $716,099, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$23,272,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. 2019-00350 Page 2 of 5 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 14 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.20-$288.33/SF, with a mean of$161/SF. The PAO concludes $125/SF X 189,424 SF = $23,678,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Sales #6 ($138.90/SF), #9 ($147.74/SF a shell building storing cars), & #11 ($139.48/SF), are in close proximity to the subject. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross for the office space (50,585 SF), $17/SF gross for the flex space (138,839 SF), vacancy/collection loss at 8.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to the NOI. NOTE: THE PAO'S MATH IS WRONG. The PAO's PGI of$3,624,888 is correct, 8% vacancy is a deduct of$289,991, resulting in EGI of$3,334,897. Expenses of 30% equates to $1,000,469 (i.e. $5.28/SF), resulting in NOI of$2,334,428 (not $1,520,009). After applying the loaded 8.2% cap rate to the corrected NOI, the corrected Income Approach value is $28,469,000, or $150.29/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing via all 3 approaches to value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 89 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Income Approach only. The PET provides market income exhibit, CoStar subject listing reports, cap rate data, and expense data. Unfortunately, the PET did not have a rent roll or historical profit & loss statement. The PET seeks a value reduction to $12,287,635, which is almost $8M less than the last sales price of the subject in 2008, and 73.3% of the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon $14.60/SF, 10% vacancy, 46.2% ($6.06/SF) expenses (includes reserves), and a loaded cap rate of 9.28% (i.e. 8.25% + 1.03% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$12,287,365 (after a 15% COS deduction is made). The PET includes actual CoStar listings for the subject. THE PET'S IMPROVED SALES While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing market supported cap rates from numerous sales. That data (in general) better supports the PAO's unloaded cap rate of 7.17%). Unfortunately for the PET, the Collier sales provided "$/SF" indicators in five different sales sheets (see PET's evidence pages 30, 43, 55, 67, & 79). The subject's assessment equates to $96.74/SF. As noted by the PAO during the hearing, the mixture of Collier & Lee County sales in those sheets tend to support two findings: a.) the Collier Sales tend to be higher than the Lee sales, and b.) the majority the Collier sales appear supportive of$/SF indicators well beyond $96.74/SF, with ample COS consideration. As just one example, PET's page 30 has a roster of 18 sales that closed during 2017 - 2019, but #7 & #18 are in Lee County; thus, they are disregarded. Of the remaining 16 I will disregard the highest & lowest indicators as potential outliers. That leaves 14 Collier sales that range form $94 - $191/SF, with an average of$138/SF. RULING: 1. The subject last sold in August 2008 for $20,165,300. The contested just value equates to 90.9% of the prior purchase price 11 years ago. The market has substantially (if not fully) recovered from the prior recession. Thus, a just value of$18,324,624 is not totally unusual, given steadily improving economic and real estate conditions. While it may be 2019-00350 Page 3 of 5 true the subject's assessment increased 40.1% ($5,245,403) from 2018, it is probable the subject had been underassessed in prior years. That does not mean the 2019 assessment is excessive just because there was a significant increase. 2.While the PET did not intend to demonstrate a Sales Comparison Approach, he inadvertently did by showing a substantial amount of Collier sales data that is supportive if the subject's just value of$96.74/SF. A substantial number of sales in PET's evidence are supportive of the assessment, at least from a cursory review of the rosters provided. The PAO also has ample improved sales to support the assessment. 3.The PAO sent out two mailings to commercial/industrial property owners during 2019 requesting financial information to assist in the assessment process. If the subject's owner thinks he is being over-assessed, he should share actual operating data with the PAO during 2020, and possibly the PAO can make adjustments to the subject's next assessment. 4.The PAO's land value of$24. 10/SF seems as though it could be reasonable; however, the subject site has 14.82 acres and none of the residuals or land sales were larger than 3.24 acres. There was no good evidence in the record for larger site sales. The PAO's Cost Approach should have included entrepreneurial profit (easily 15% of the construction costs) and lease-up costs to get to stabilization (likely $1M, or more). Thus, if the land value were as low as $18.50/SF, 15% entrepreneurial profit were considered, and $1M in lease-up costs were included to get stabilized, the assessment still would be upheld with sufficient room for 15% COS consideration. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. In fact, some of the PET's own evidence helps to support the PAO's assessment. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00350: 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 2019-00350 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00350 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 7 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00353 Parcel ID 67410000808 Petitioner name THOMAS D FLANAGAN JR Property 2324 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [71 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34105 [' other, explain: Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 14,256,292.00 14,256,292.00 14,256,292.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,740,327.00 10,740,327.00 10,740,327.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,740,327.00 10,740,327.00 10,740,327.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/15/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiql ❑ 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 2019-00353 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00353: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Target) was represented by Kyle Sheehan, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Target built in 1994. In 2006, there was a 5,612 SF addition to the building. The subject is located in a power center environment, although the subject petition is a freestanding store without any local tenant space associated with this hearing. The subject's address is 2324 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida. The subject has 121,602 SF of adjusted building area situated upon a site of 488,308 SF (i.e. 11.21 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold as a land sale in 1993 for $2.7M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$14,256,292, or $117/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, & building permit history. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from various sources. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $2,092,488 of impact fees for a total of$11,858,648 (which is 83.2% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. The first 8 appear to be `residual' indicators [given little weight]; whereby, the assessed portion of improvement values are removed from the respective sales prices. The final 3 properties are actual land sales. Land Sale #9 ($17.18/SF) is relatively close to the subject and it was purchased in early 2016 for a car dealership. Land Sale #10 ($26.49/SF) was 2019-00353 Page 2 of 6 purchased along the North Trail in mid-2014 for a Mercedes dealership. Land Sale #11 ($30.38/SF) is an early 2019 sale (but was under contract on the assessment date), and it is also located along the North Trail. Some upward time consideration is likely warranted to the slightly older sales (#9 & #10). The land value appears reasonably well supported. It is stressed that the subject site is situated is in the center of a power center environment with neighboring Publix and Beall's store (along with limited local tenants). The proximity to significant other anchors helps to enhance the subject's site value and location. 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 ($6,829,168) & site improvements/paving at $749,367, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$19,437,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. Five are in Lee County, while 4 are in Collier County. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.49/SF. Most weight is given to 3 fee simple sales in Collier County (#1, #7 & #8). All three happen to be located in fairly close proximity to the subject. Improved Sale #1 was a dark Toys R Us store (30,585 SF) that closed in late 2018 for $212.52/SF, #7 was a former Sports Authority (43,964 SF) that sold in 2016 for $235.42/SF, and #8 is now a Dick's Sporting Goods Store that sold in 2016 for $208.74/SF. It is worthy to note that PAO's Sale #6 has 55,048 SF & closed in 2016 for $169.85/SF, but it was a leased fee transaction influenced by the lease. Because of the subject's larger building site, the PAO gives weight to the Collier fee simple sales mentioned but rounds down to $150/SF X 121,602 SF = $18,240,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach conclusion (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,109,010 for a value indication of$14,787,000, or $122/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO's support for the subject's rental rate is extremely limited in his evidence package. 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 supported land value + impact fees equal 83.2% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a very substantial building in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 168 pages of evidence prior to the hearing. The PET provided a cover sheet (requesting a value of $8,871,238), subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's pro-forma Income Approach (incorrectly labeled by the PET as a 'cash flow report'), a Brevard County Beall's sale from 2018, roster of anchor rents around FL (the Collier Hobby Lobby sale is included), grid/back up data for 7 improved sales in SW Florida (1 is not timely for consideration, none of the 7 sales are in Collier County & only 1 sale is in Lee County), a comparable assessment analysis of 10 Collier 'big box' properties (land areas and FAR's are not included for each sale), shopping center report (with demographics at various 1, 3, 5, & 10 mile radius statistics), another roster of 13 sales with back-up (these are shopping centers ,not big box sales, and the first 3 closed in 2019 & are not timely for 2019-00353 Page 3 of 6 consideration, and 4 of the remaining 12 are in Lee County), graph of retail trade (from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank), bar graphs of 2018 nationwide store closings in 2018, various articles on ecommerce/store closings, article titled `Appraisal Problems with Big Box Properties", Eight criterion deduction & uniformity statutes, Collier's DR=493, and reconciliation of the PET's final value request of a just value of $8,871,238. In addition, I accepted 22 pages of rebuttal evidence from the PET at the hearing. That rebuttal evidence summarized the PAO's 9 improved sales and provided CoStar back-up information for each of those sales. The PET gives emphasis to 3 of the PAO's sales after making large (and perhaps very subjective) adjustments to each. The PET concludes those three sales result in a $10.64M value indication. The PET notes the 2019 just value increased 46% (i.e. $4,492,358) from 2018. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon $7.39/SF, 10% vacancy, 8.6% expenses/reserves ($0.74/SF), and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$8,375,600 (after a 15% COS deduction). The PET's use of a 10% vacancy rate appears very high for this type of property that would customarily be leased to a tenant on a long-term lease. A landlord expecting 10% vacancy likely would wait for a more suitable tenant. The PAO's 5% vacancy rate is much more reasonable for a tenant occupying this space. The PET made an incorrect statement when he stated that his cap rate was the same as the PAO's. That is not the case. The PET uses a `market [unloaded] rate of 7.5%' and applies it on a 'net lease' situation. The PAO uses a LOADED rate of 7.5%, which is the sum of the millage rate, plus a lower market cap rate [approximately 6.3%]. The PET states he bases his $7.39/SF NNN rental rate on the average of 8 properties on page 8 of his evidence. The $7.39/SF rate was an average of many inferior properties. Only the Hobby Lobby lease (55,000 SF @ $10/SF NNN from 2016) came from the Collier County market. The use of other anchor rental date from [arguably inferior] Rockledge, Hudson, Plant City, Bradenton, Odessa, and Perry markets does not make a great deal of sense. This is particularly true when reviewing some of the other Naples-area market comments in PET's evidence. As an example, page 128 of PET's evidence states, "Retail vacancy is 5.2% in Naples and has remained below the historical average, despite the recent rise. With around 450,000 SF of retail under construction, supply side pressure continues to be a concern. However, this shouldn't have detrimental effects on the market, as around 2/3 of retail under construction is preleased." Page 133 of PET's evidence states, "The Naples Submarket commands the highest rents in the market at over $31/SF, the highest for any submarket outside of South Florida." These comments undermine the selection of the PET's rent in the Income Approach. The comments also undermine the use of such a substantial amount of non-Collier data in two different Sales Comparison charts provided (to be discussed in the next paragraph). If necessary, the PET could have selected some anchor rents from Southeast Florida counties, that tend to be more in line with Collier County. The bottom line is that the PET's rent projection for the subject is inadequately supported. [And the PAO's anchor rent support could also be a lot better, as well.] THE PET INCLUDES A COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH via the use of two different sets of sales data. On page 25 of PET's evidence, he provides 7 sales of 'big 2019-00353 Page 4 of 6 box' stores from SW Florida. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $24-$73/SF. The PET concludes $61.75/SF X 121,602 SF = $7,509,119 for the Sales Comparison Approach. However, none of those 7 sales were in Collier County & only one was in Lee County (the Home Depot with a corrected rate of$63.43/SF before COS adjustment). The first sale on that grid of 7 closed late in 2019; thus, it is not timely for consideration at this hearing. That leaves 6 sales, with none in Collier County and only one in Lee County. Three were in Pasco, two in NE Tampa, and one in Port Charlotte. In a different sales grid of 13 `shopping center' sales [all from Collier or Lee Counties) presented on page 97 of PET's evidence, 3 are 2019 sales not timey for consideration. Six of the top 13 highest sales happen to be in Collier County, which tends to support various arguments that Collier County data tends to be higher than Lee (and many other counties). The use of `shopping center' sales data to compare to single-occupant big box sales is an `apples-to-orange' comparison anyway. Therefore, the two different sales presentations by the PET have flaws for comparability to the subject. THE PET ALSO INCLUDES A COMPARABLE ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS in his evidence. Ten 'big box' assessment comps from Collier County are presented. Examples include Wal Marts, Sam's Club, Costco, and Home Depot. The subject's assessment at $117.24/SF is higher than any of the other 10 provided in the PET's roster. The PAO rebutted by saying they keep track of all assessments for this class of property, and for 2019 the range was from $70 — $186/SF. This implies the subject's assessment is slightly above average of all big box assessments. There can be a variety of age, location, and land-to-building (LTB) ratio factors that go into variations in the total assessment/SF data. While the PEI's exhibit is good, it is apparently not inclusive enough to accurately portray the wide range of assessments for this class of property in Collier County. RULING: 1.It is noted that the subject had over $1.43M in building permit activity in the 2016 to 2017 time frame. 2.The PET is requesting a just value of$8,871,238, which is only 74.8% of the PAO's estimated land value + impact fees. 3. It is noted that the PET mentions the `Eighth Criterion deduction', yet apparently missed proving one key element related to item #2 on that list (i.e. FS 193.011 [2]) for highest and best use. One thing that the PAO does do is to provide support for the land value, given the land is valued fee simple 'as if vacant' and available to be put to its H&BU. The land value provides the base line of value, and the impact fees are important. Impact fees can be quite significant in dollar magnitude, and they 'run with the land'. The PAO's supported land value + impact fees equal 83.2% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a very substantial building in place. Furthermore, the subject's building just had $1.43M in work performed (as mentioned above) in the 2- year time frame leading up to the 2019 assessment date. Simply stated, it is extremely difficult to make definitive H&BU conclusions without knowing what the land value (+impact fees) are, because the income generated by a given building may not be sufficient enough to cover the land value. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed in accordance with FS 193.011 [2]. 2019-00353 Page 5 of 6 4.The PET's support for market rent is extremely weak (and the PAO's support is not much better). 5.The PET makes use of mostly non-comparable improved sales data (via 2 different grids). 6. The PET's argument regarding comparable assessments is not extensive enough, given the PAO's testimony indicate the range/SF of assessments goes all the way up to $186/ SF in Collier County. Thus, at $117/SF, the subject's assessment is a little higher than the average for this type of big box. 7. 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) that equate to 83.2% of the total assessment. Even if the PAO's land value were reduced to $15/SF, the just value would still be warranted with a total Cost Approach figure of$17M (with all other PAO inputs remaining the same). Thus, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO's assessment. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00353: 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. 2019-00353 Page 6 of 6 111 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 17 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00354 Parcel ID 24745001065 Petitioner name THOMAS D FLANAGAN JR Property 2415 TARPON BAYBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record LT taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34119 other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 17,005,092.00 17,005,092.00 17,005,092.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 15,477,725.00 15,477,725.00 15,477,725.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 15,477,725.00 15,477,725.00 15,477,725.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi41 ❑ 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 2019-00354 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00354: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Target) was represented by Kyle Sheehan, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Super Target built in 2007. The subject's address is 2415 Tarpon Bay Boulevard, Naples, Florida. It is located in the SE quadrant of the I-75/Immokalee Road interchange. The adjusted building area is 175,337 SF situated upon a site of 636,412 SF (i.e. 14.61 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has been no arm's length transfers of the subject in the last 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$17,005,092, or $97/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, & data related to retail/ big box cap rates from various sources. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $18/SF, plus $2,924,593 of impact fees for a total of$14,380,009 (which is 84.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 12 commercial land sale indicators. Seven (7) of the 12 are `residual' indicators given less weight, while 5 are actual land sales worthy of consideration. Land Sales #5 and #7 are in close proximity to the subject but are much smaller sites relative to the subject's 14.61 acres. Land Sales #10 ($17.18/SF) & #11 ($26.49/SF) are large sites, but still a little smaller than the subject. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Immokalee Road and very convenient access to/from I-75. 2019-00354 Page 2 of 7 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 ($11,121,977) & site improvements/paving at $768,891, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$26,271,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. [Note: Even if one were to argue that the PAO is still too aggressive on the $18/SF land value, the Cost Approach would still support the assessment at $8.25/SF with ample 15% COS room allowed.] In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. Five are in Lee County, while 4 are in Collier County. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.49/SF. Most weight is given to 3 fee simple sales in Collier County (#1, #7 & #8). Improved Sale #1 was a dark Toys R Us store (30,585 SF) that closed in late 2018 for $212.52/SF, #7 was a former Sports Authority (43,964 SF) that sold in 2016 for $235.42/SF, and #8 (51,048 SF) is now a Dick's Sporting Goods Store that sold in 2016 for $208.74/SF. It is worthy to note that PAO's Sale #6 closed in 2016 for $169.85/SF, but it was a leased fee transaction influenced by the lease. Because of the subject's larger building site, the PAO gives weight to the Collier fee simple sales mentioned but rounds down to $125/SF X 175,337 SF = $21,917,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). [Note: The PET does provide arguments that some of the PAO's sales are not very comparable. I agree, which is why I mainly address the fee simple Collier sales noted above.] In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,599,073 for a value indication of$21,321,000, or $122/SF (before COS consideration). 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 PAO's estimated land value + impact fees equal 84.6% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a fairly modern building constructed in 2007 in place. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted into evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 165 pages of evidence prior to the hearing. The PET provided a cover sheet (requesting a value of $9,073,934), subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's pro-forma Income Approach (incorrectly labeled by the PET as a 'cash flow report'), a Brevard County Beall's sale from 2018, roster of anchor rents around FL (the Collier Hobby Lobby sale is included), grid/back up data for 7 improved sales in SW Florida (1 is not timely for consideration, none of the 7 sales are in Collier County & only 1 sale is in Lee County), a comparable assessment analysis of 10 Collier 'big box' properties (land areas and FAR's are not included for each sale), shopping center report (with demographics at various 1, 3, 5, & 10 mile radius statistics), another roster of 13 sales with back-up (these are shopping centers ,not big box sales, and the first 3 closed in 2019 & are not timely for consideration, and 4 of the remaining 12 are in Lee County), graph of retail trade (from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank), bar graphs of 2018 nationwide store closings in 2018, various articles on ecommerce/store closings, article titled `Appraisal Problems with Big Box Properties", Eight criterion deduction & uniformity statutes, Collier's DR=493, and reconciliation of the PET's final value request of a just value of 2019-00354 Page 3 of 7 $8,871,238. In addition, I accepted 22 pages of rebuttal evidence from the PET at the hearing. That rebuttal evidence summarized the PAO's 9 improved sales and provided CoStar back-up information for each of those sales. The PET gives emphasis to 3 of the PAO's sales after making large (and perhaps very subjective) adjustments to each. The PET concludes those three sales result in a $10.12M value indication. The PET notes the 2019 just value s stayed exactly the same as the 2018 just value. The PET provides a Sales Comparison Approach, Income Approach, and a `Uniformity Analysis' (i.e. comparable assessments analysis) in evidence. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $5.84/SF, 10% vacancy, 9.6% combined expenses, and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$9,447,800 (after a 15% COS deduction). In the prior hearing of a Target of 121,602 SF, this same PET projected a rent of$7.39/SF, while he project's this larger store with a rent $1.27/SF less, or $5.84/SF, apparently giving weight to adjustments he makes to the Hobby Lobby lease. The PET's use of a 10% vacancy rate appears very high for this type of property that would customarily be leased to a tenant on a long-term lease. A landlord expecting 10% vacancy likely would wait for a more suitable tenant. The PAO's 5% vacancy rate is much more reasonable for a tenant occupying this space. The PET made an incorrect statement when he stated that his cap rate was the same as the PAO's. That is not the case. The PET uses a `market [unloaded] rate of 7.5%' and applies it on a 'net lease' situation. The PAO uses a LOADED rate of 7.5%, which is the sum of the millage rate, plus a lower market cap rate [approximately 6.3%]. As noted previously, the PET stated he bases his $5.84/SF NNN rental rate on the Hobby Lobby lease with adjustments applied for location and size. [Note: I question the PET's math on this first rent comparable. $6.00 rent from K-Mart property X [1+(.72-.05)] = $10.02/SF adjusted, not $9.03/SF. The use of other anchor rental date from [arguably inferior] Rockledge, Hudson, Plant City, Bradenton, Odessa, and Perry markets does not make a great deal of sense. However, it also begs the question as to why the PET would not use some of the higher (adjusted) rental indicators from those comps he provides, given the PET is going to the trouble of adjusting them. It makes no sense to conclude to the $5.84 rental rate, given his own adjustment process shows Rent #1 adjusts to (corrected) $10.02, #4 adjusted to $11.05, #7 at $9.99, and #7 at $10.03. That shows a much tighter correlation, and the average of those 4 equates to $10.27/SF. Interestingly enough, if$10.27/SF is plugged into the remaining PET inputs, a value of$17,368,000 (after a 15% COS deduction is made), which SUPPORTS the PAO's just value of$17,005,092. In reference to the PET's excessive use of non-Collier data, some of the other Naples- area market comments in PET's evidence provide good insight as to the differences and quality of the Naples area. As an example, page 125 of PET's evidence states, "Retail vacancy is 5.2% in Naples and has remained below the historical average, despite the recent rise. With around 450,000 SF of retail under construction, supply side pressure continues to be a concern. However, this shouldn't have detrimental effects on the market, as around 2/3 of retail under construction is preleased." Page 130 of PET's evidence states, "The Naples Submarket commands the highest rents in the market at 2019-00354 Page 4 of 7 over $31/SF, the highest for any submarket outside of South Florida." These comments undermine the selection of the PET's rent in the Income Approach (i.e. by at least not giving weight to the PET's own adjustments he makes to those rents). The comments also undermine the use of such a substantial amount of non-Collier data in two different Sales Comparison charts provided (to be discussed in the next paragraph). If necessary, the PET could have selected some anchor rents from Southeast Florida counties, that tend to be more in line with Collier County. The bottom line is that the PET's rent projection for the subject is inadequately supported. In fact, a more careful analysis of the most consistent adjusted indicator (near $10.27/SF) demonstrates the PAO's assessment is reasonable. THE PET INCLUDES A COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH via the use of two different sets of sales data. On page 24 of PET's evidence, he provides 7 sales of 'big box' stores from SW Florida. The PET concludes $61.59/SF X 175,337 SF = $10,799,642 for the Sales Comparison Approach (after 15% COS). However, none of those 7 sales were in Collier County & only one was in Lee County (the Home Depot with a corrected rate of$63.43/SF before COS adjustment). The first sale on that grid of 7 closed late in 2019; thus, it is not timely for consideration at this hearing. That leaves 6 sales, with none in Collier County and only one in Lee County. Three were in Pasco, two in NE Tampa, and one in Port Charlotte. In a different sales grid of 13 `shopping center' sales [all from Collier or Lee Counties) presented on page 94 of PET's evidence, 3 are 2019 sales not timey for consideration. Six of the top 13 highest sales happen to be in Collier County, which tends to support various arguments that Collier County data tends to be higher than Lee (and many other counties). The use of `shopping center' sales data to compare to single-occupant big box sales is an `apples-to-orange' comparison anyway. Therefore, the two different sales presentations by the PET have flaws for comparability to the subject. THE PET ALSO INCLUDES A COMPARABLE ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS on page 60 of his evidence. Ten 'big box' assessment comps from Collier County are presented. Examples include Wal Marts, Sam's Club, Costco, and Home Depot. The subject's assessment at $96.99/SF is higher than any of the other 10 provided in the PET's roster. (NOTE: The PET fails to include the other Target he just appealed in petition TP- 353 that is assessed at $117.24/SF). The PAO rebutted by saying their office keeps track of all assessments for this class of property, and for 2019 the range was from $70 — $186/SF. This implies the subject's assessment is slightly below the $128/SF midpoint of that range for all big box assessments. There can be a variety of age, location, and land-to- building (LTB) ratio factors that go into variations in the total assessment/SF data. While the PET's exhibit is good, it is apparently not inclusive enough to accurately portray the wide range of assessments for this class of property in Collier County. Again, the PET's other appeal of a Target store on this same hearing date is another example of a property that has a higher assessment/SF than the subject. RULING: 1.The PET is requesting a just value of$9,073,934, which is only 85.9% of the PAO's estimated land value + impact fees. 2. It is noted that the PET mentions the `Eighth Criterion deduction', yet apparently missed proving one key element related to item #2 on that list (i.e. FS 193.011 [2]) for 2019-00354 Page 5 of 7 highest and best use. One thing that the PAO does do is to provide support for the land value, given the land is valued fee simple 'as if vacant' and available to be put to its H&BU. The land value provides the base line of value, and the impact fees are important. Impact fees can be quite significant in dollar magnitude, and they 'run with the land'. The PAO's supported land value + impact fees equal 84.6% of the PAO's total assessment. Simply stated, it is extremely difficult to make definitive H&BU conclusions without knowing what the land value (+ impact fees) are, because the income generated by a given building may not be sufficient enough to cover the land value. The PET's failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed in accordance with FS 193.011 [2]. 3.Upon careful analysis of the most consistent big box `adjusted' rent indicators, the PET's own evidence actually supports the PAO's assessment. In fact, the PET does a better job of preparing an Income Approach to support the assessment than the PAO does. The problem was the PET's selective use of just one indicator, rather than looking at the most consistent grouping of adjusted rent indicators. To reiterate, the PET's (corrected) Income Approach supports the PAO's assessment. 4.The PET makes use of mostly non-comparable improved sales data (via 2 different grids). There is excessive use of non-Collier data. In the one method of sales, the PET presents shopping centers, which is an `apples-to-oranges' comparison to the subject's big box design. 5. The PET's argument regarding comparable assessments is not fully explored with enough evidence. The PAO's testimony indicates their office does track big box assessments, and the range/SF of assessments goes all the way up to $186/SF in Collier County. Thus, at $96.99/SF, the subject's assessment apparently is not atypical. 7.Even if one were to argue that the PAO is still too aggressive on the $18/SF land value, the Cost Approach would still support the assessment at $8.25/SF with ample 15% COS room allowed. In conclusion, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO's assessment. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00354: 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 2019-00354 Page 6 of 7 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. 2019-00354 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00358 Parcel ID 17912480002 Petitioner name RONALD D SIPPEL REV TRUST Property 627 5TH AVE N The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address 0 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,899,256.00 3,899,256.00 3,899,256.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,834,795.00 3,834,795.00 3,834,795.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,834,795.00 3,834,795.00 3,834,795.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/08/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00358 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00358: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) had a representative, Mr. Burkhard Klein. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,899,256. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 4,112-sf and an adjusted building size of 5,029-sf. The adjusted size accounts 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 .32 acres or 14,175-sf. The building age is 15 years. Amenities include a pool and spa. The property is located at 627 5th Avenue North, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Molina presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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. 2019-00358 Page 2 of 7 PAO, Mr. Straruch 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, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definitions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, location map, photos and aerial of the subject and floor plan sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos and floor plan sketch of the comparable sales, PAO included the property record card for the subject property. 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 in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from February 2018 to September 2018. The land sales range from 7,405 to 17,424-sf. The sale prices range is $136.85 to $273.3/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $165.00/sf or $2,299,968. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are included in the cost of the depreciated building and the total cost of improvements is estimated at $1,996,555, the land value is estimated at $2,299,968 indicates a value of$4,296,523. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2018 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 4,084-sf to 5,516-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 8,276 to 13,068-sf. The buildings were built from 2013 to 2017. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $671.00 to $960.00/sf of building area including land with a mid-range of$794.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $794/sf of building area including land or $3,993,000 rounded. PEI's evidence consisted of a 22-page appraisal report, and 19-pages of comparable sales, some of which are included in the 22-page appraisal report. The 23-page report is an appraisal completed by Mr. Klein on the subject property dated January 1, 2019. The appraisal is a residential appraisal summary report form and contains a cover page with a photo of the subject, highest and best use, details of the subject and neighborhood, three comparable sales, the cost approach, supplemental addendum, building sketch, photos of the subject (interior and exterior), photos and details of the comparable sales, location map of the subject and sales, aerial, assumption and limiting conditions, appraiser's certification and license. All of PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for 2019-00358 Page 3 of 7 consideration. The appraisal presented in PET's package contains 4 sales. The sales occurred from March 2018 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 3,771-sf to 5,012- sf; the land size ranges from 8,712 to 12,632-sf. The buildings range in age from 1 to 4 years old. Adjustments were made to some of the sales as compared to the subject for quality of construction, condition and building area. The adjusted sales range from $2,931,100 to $3,385,000. PET reconciled a value of$3,150,000 or $766.05/sf based on a building area of 4,112-sf. PET's cost approach includes 5 land sales. The sales took place from June 2018 to November 2018. The sales range in size from 7,841 to 17,424-sf and sold in the range of $1,075,000 to $2,300,000. Pet reconciled the land value at $1,450,000. PET estimated the depreciated cost of the building at $1,780,420, site improvements are estimated at $100,000, the land at $1,450,000 for a total of$3,330,420. PET estimated value: $3,240,000. 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 2019-00358 Page 4 of 7 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 54-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. As rebuttal, PAO indicted one of PET's land sale in close proximity the subject was not used by PAO because the property was improved as of January 1, 2019 and the building was demolished in April 2019. PAO indicated some of PET's land sales have different zoning and PET made no adjustments for zoning or difference in lot sizes. PAO indicated the owner paid $3,600,000 in May 2015 for the subject and values have been increasing since that time. PET's value at $3,240,000 is below the sales price in 2015. 2019-00358 Page 5 of 7 As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's land value is high and indicated PAO did not use the land sale in subject neighborhood, where the house had been demolished in April 2019 as mentioned above. PET indicated the distance to the beach is key in this neighborhood and all of PAO's land sales are closer to the beach. SM reviewed the evidence. The subject has had no new improvements since the purchase in May 2015 at a sale price of$3,600,000 and the market has not decreased in value since May 2015. PAO provided adequate support for the current just 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 2019-00358: 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 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). 2019-00358 Page 6 of 7 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. 2019-00358 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V 0: R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule12D-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00359 Parcel ID 14013280007 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property 271 BROAD AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34102 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 5,780,375.00 5,780,375.00 5,780,375.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,612,907.00 4,612,907.00 4,612,907.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,612,907.00 4,612,907.00 4,612,907.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ 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 2019-00359 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00359: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00359: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00359 Page 2 of 2 1111 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00360 Parcel ID 14020800001 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property Eltaxpayer of record 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: � taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 9,312,673.00 9,312,673.00 9,312,673.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,014,679.00 8,014,679.00 8,014,679.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,014,679.00 8,014,679.00 8,014,679.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ 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 2019-00360 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00360: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00360: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00360 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00361 Parcel ID 14020840003 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property 365 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record yj taxpayer's agent address 5TH AVE S NA ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 10,141,172.00 10,141,172.00 10,141,172.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,141,172.00 10,141,172.00 10,141,172.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,141,172.00 10,141,172.00 10,141,172.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00361 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00361: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00361: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00361 Page 2 of 2 Ea DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. EI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00362 Parcel ID 14018960005 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property ❑ taxpayer of record 12TH AVE S The petitioner is: Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,865,257.00 2,865,257.00 2,865,257.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,865,257.00 2,865,257.00 2,865,257.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,865,257.00 2,865,257.00 2,865,257.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ 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 2019-00362 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00362: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00362: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00362 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 121 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00363 Parcel ID 14020000005 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property 393 BROAD AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34102 other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,539,581.00 2,539,581.00 2,539,581.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,223,558.00 2,223,558.00 2,223,558.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,223,558.00 2,223,558.00 2,223,558.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00363 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00363: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00363: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00363 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V rdi VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00364 Parcel ID 14026960000 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property 401 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record El taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary 12:1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 9,722,122.00 9,722,122.00 9,722,122.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,396,448.00 7,396,448.00 7,396,448.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,396,448.00 7,396,448.00 7,396,448.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00364 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00364: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00364: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00364 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00365 Parcel ID 11432000007 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property 630 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address Elother, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,684,469.00 3,684,469.00 3,684,469.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,138,913.00 3,138,913.00 3,138,913.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,138,913.00 3,138,913.00 3,138,913.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00365 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00365: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00365: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00365 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00366 Parcel ID 19011720001 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property 898 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34102 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 4,679,290.00 4,679,290.00 4,679,290.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,380,790.00 4,380,790.00 4,380,790.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,380,790.00 4,380,790.00 4,380,790.00 *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) iI71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00366 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00366: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00366: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00366 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00367 Parcel ID 14011720006 Petitioner name THOMAS J. BOYLE Property 1400 3RD STS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address Elother, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary 17I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 6,427,401.00 6,427,401.00 6,427,401.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,442,054.00 5,442,054.00 5,442,054.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,442,054.00 5,442,054.00 5,442,054.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ 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 2019-00367 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00367: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did NOT attend the hearing but did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00367: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00367 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V rei VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00370 Parcel ID 70971360003 Petitioner name MICHAEL DONOHUE Property 3121 GOODLETTE-FRANK RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 1Z taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12,165,065.00 12,165,065.00 12,165,065.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,165,065.00 12,165,065.00 12,165,065.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,165,065.00 12,165,065.00 12,165,065.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/30/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axil2 ❑ 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 2019-00370 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00370: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Michael Donohue) did not attend the hearing but issued an email on the morning of hearing requesting that his evidence be entertained. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of two climate-controlled self-storage buildings built in 2018. The subject's address is 3121 Goodlette-Frank Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 104,046 SF situated upon a site of 141,134 SF (i.e. 3.24 acres). The 3-story building has 94,446 SF of adjusted area, while the 2-story building has 9,600 SF of adjusted area. The PET reports the subject to be at 28.2% occupancy on the assessment date. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold as land in March 2016 for $3,325,000, or $23.56/SF of land area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$12,165,065 or $117/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's special warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data (self- storage facilities), PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, impact fee calculations, building permit history, land appreciation study' exhibit, land sale aerials/details, & RERC return expectations by property type — 4th Quarter 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $32/SF X 141,134 SF ($4,516,288), plus $336,688 of impact fees for a total of$4,852,976 (which is 39.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land 2019-00370 Page 2 of 4 sales. Land Sale #7 was the subject's prior site sale in early 2016 for $23.56/SF (before any appreciation is applied). The PAO does provide an exhibit called `Land-Appreciation Table Study" addressing the significant monthly rates of increase for 10 different site sales in the market that also had a prior sale within a reasonably short time frame. Monthly appreciation rates from 1% to 4% are not uncommon, based upon those sales. The appreciated land values/SF are provided in the right-hand column of the PAO's land sales grid. Land Sales 6, 7 (the subject), & 8 were all developed with self-storage facilities. 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 $7,602,221, 25% entrepreneurial profit at $1,919,753 & site improvements/paving at $114,984, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $14,490,000 (before COS consideration). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 4 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $134.69-$267.15/SF. The PAO concludes $175/SF X 104,046 SF of adjusted area = $18,208,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The subject's assessment of$12,165,065 or $117/SF of adjusted building area; thus, the subject's assessment appears reasonable, because it is less than the $135/SF figure from Sale #4, which was half-way through it lease-up. However, the subject is much closer to the population base of Naples, while Sale #4 is in a less populated (but growing) area at the NE quadrant of I-75 & Collier Boulevard. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $18.00/SF gross [applied to the PAO's estimated 83,237 `rentable' SF], vacancy/collection loss at 10.0% [5% less than the PET], expenses at 35.0% of EGI [5% more than the PET], and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [PET uses 8.6%] to NOI of$876,486 for a value indication of$10,956,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET did not appear at the hearing but did have evidence to be considered. The PET presents cost data & Income Approach. The PET provides a cover letter (requesting a value of$9.2M), Income Approach, roster of new self-storage supply that came on line since 2017, AIA application for payment (showing a $6.36M contract amount), closing statement for the site acquisition in early 2016, Marshall & Swift cost data, and an exhibit showing the subject's 28.2% occupancy statistics/unit mix, as of 12/31/2019]. The PET does not include a formal 'Cost Approach', as there is no land value estimate, no entrepreneurial profit estimate, no lease-up costs [to the 28.2% level of occupancy], and no soft costs. While the PET's cover letter states a cost indication of$9.2M, there is no justification as to how that figure was derived. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's "Cost Approach". It is noted there is a significant & unexplained difference between the building permit value and the AIA application for payment form's full contract amount with the CG. However, the permit amount of$12.939M appears grossly excessive and well beyond the PAOs' replacement cost figure too. THE PET PROVIDES AN INCOME APPROACH that has revenue based upon the annualization of the subject's monthly potential revenue in the PETs unit mix exhibit. The PET then project's 15% vacancy, expenses at 30% of EGI, then applies a loaded cap 2019-00370 Page 3 of 4 rate of 8.6% (i.e. 7.5% + 1.1% millage rate) to the NOI, resulting in a value indication of $9.16M. The PET does not provide a market rent survey, cap rate survey, expense survey, and does not provide any of the subject's income/expense statements to date. There also no discount for lease-up shown. The PET's Income Approach is very weak. RULING: 1.It appears illogical that the PET makes a request for a $7M just value, given the owner just spent almost $7.7M for work associated with the building permit. The additional $3.3M in land value and impact fees (as estimated and well-supported by the PAO), plus site work, plus some degree of entrepreneurial profit & lease-up expenses easily helps to support the contested just value. 2.The PET presents cost data that fails to qualify as an `approach' conforming to generally accepted appraisal methods. There is no clear discussion of prevailing land values as of the assessment date, and no discussion as to how the PET arrived at a cost indication of$8M. 3. The PET's Income Approach is very weak & not supported by market evidence or support. The PAO's Income Approach is also weak for similar reasons. The PAO's cap rate in his Income Approach is likely low and should have had additional support from more self-storage industry surveys. The PAO's total rentable area estimate is 2,916 SF greater than the used by the PET. Had the subject's owner provided the PAO with income/expense information during the course of 2019 (as requested twice in writing by the PAO to all commercial property owners) then the PAO likely would have had time to prepare a more detailed and accurate Income Approach better reflecting the subject's actual physical mix, rentable square feet, and revenues, and expenses. Thus, I give less weight to the PAO's Income Approach, due to very limited support for inputs (as was the case with the PET's Income Approach). 4.The PAO provides 2 other approaches to value. The PAO's Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are given greater weight, as the subject is almost a new property and there is very good support for the land value and building value. The PAO provided four improved sales of very similar and modern properties that also are supportive of the just value. I give greatest weight to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, as the subject's assessment/SF is well below all 3 of the PAO's sales. The PAO's Cost Approach is given secondary weight, as it may be slightly aggressive with regard to the land value and the degree of entrepreneurial reward at only 28.2% occupancy. 5.The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00370: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00370 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Eff.01/17 Collier County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00371 Parcel ID 38454000000 Petitioner name MICHAEL DONOHUE Property 3697 KRAMERDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 8,149,838.00 8,149,838.00 8,149,838.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,149,838.00 8,149,838.00 8,149,838.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,149,838.00 8,149,838.00 8,149,838.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/26/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axilm ❑ 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 2019-00371 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00371: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Michael Donohue) did not attend the hearing but issued an email on the morning of hearing requesting that his evidence be entertained. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 2-story Extra Space Storage built in 2018 with 534 units. The subject's address is 3697 Kramer Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 79,399 SF situated upon a site of 134,154 SF (i.e. 3.08 acres). The PET reports the subject to be at 35% occupancy on the assessment date because the subject is new and is in its lease-up phase. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold (apparently as a land sale) in May 2017 for $1.6M. As will be demonstrated, land values have further appreciated, based upon PAO's Land Sale #2 (next door to the subject). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$8,149,838 or $103/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's special warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data (self- storage facilities), PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, impact fee calculations, building permit history, land appreciation study' exhibit, land sale aerials/details, & RERC return expectations by property type — 4th Quarter 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF X 134,154 SF = $2,683,080, plus $256,931 of impact fees for a total of$2,940,011 (which is 36.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land 2019-00371 Page 2 of 4 sale indicators. Land Sales #6 was the prior land sale for the subject. Land Sales #7 ($35.97/SF), #8 ($31.57/SF), & #9 ($22.73/SF) were all purchased for the construction of self-storage facilities. Land Sales #5 ($19.82/SF) & #7 ($21.90/SF) are very close to the subject. Land Sale #2 ($21.67/SF purchased in September 2018) is extremely similar to the subject and it is also next door to the subject. It is given most weight. 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 $5,685,652, entrepreneurial profit at $1,435,771 & site improvements/paving at $61,456, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$10,123,000 (before COS consideration). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 4 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $134.69-$267.15/SF. The high end of the range is reflected by a 3-story climate-controlled building constructed in 2000 that is stabilized and near downtown Naples. Sale #2 is another 3-story climate-controlled building that was built in 2017 and sold for $206.36/gross SF, & it sits back from primary road frontage. It likely was not stabilized at the time of sale, but perhaps at least 50% occupied. Sale #3 ($198.77/gross SF) is a stabilized climate-controlled facility in Lee County built in 2008. It also has 90 open storage spaces as an added benefit. Sale #4 is another new (2017) climate-controlled 2-story facility at the I-75/Collier Boulevard interchange. It sold at approximately 35% occupancy, given it was in its lease-up phase following the completion of construction. Among the sales, #4 is the most similar in lease-up [like the subject. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 79,399 SF of adjusted area = $11,910,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $18.00/SF gross [applied to the subject's estimated `rentable' area of 63,519 SF], vacancy/collection loss at 10.0% [same as PET], expenses at 35.0% [same as PET], and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [PET uses 8.65%] to NOI of$668,857 for a value indication of$8,361,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET did not appear at the hearing but did have evidence to be considered. The PET presents cost data & Income Approach. The PET provides a cover letter (requesting a value of$6.3M), Income Approach [$5.522M value], roster of new self-storage supply that came on line since 2017, AIA application for payment (showing over $4.7M of the $5.6M permit costs), closing statement for the site acquisition in 2017, and an exhibit showing the subject's occupancy statistics/unit mix [showing 25% SF occupancy, as of 12/31/2019 & 48.2% as of 7/1/2019]. THE PET DOES NOT INCLUDE A FORMAL 'COST APPROACH', as there is no land value estimate, no entrepreneurial profit estimate, no lease-up costs [to the 35% level of occupancy], and no soft costs. While the PET's cover letter states a cost indication of $6.3M, there is no justification as to how that figure was derived. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's "Cost Approach" or 'cost data'. THE PET PROVIDES AN INCOME APPROACH that has revenue based upon the annualization of the subject's monthly potential revenue in his unit mix exhibit. The PET then project's 15% vacancy, expenses at 30% of EGI, then applies a loaded cap rate of 8.6% (i.e. 7.5% + 1.1% millage rate) to the NOI, resulting in a value indication of 2019-00371 Page 3 of 4 $5.52M. The PET does not provide a market rent survey, cap rate survey, expense survey, and does not provide any of the subject's income/expense statements to date. There also discount for lease-up shown. The PET's Income Approach is very weak. RULING: 1.Assuming the PET's net rentable area is correct in his unit mix (which it probably is), the PAO appears to have understated the subject's rentable area by 3,583 SF. The PAO uses 63,519 SF, while the PET uses 59,936 SF. Both the PAO and the PET have a variety of deficiencies in their support for inputs each uses. Both fail to provide a discount for lease-up, both have weak (or no) support for the cap rate [both use rates that are very high for this property type and age], both fail to show prevailing market rents for storage spaces, and both fail to support expenses. Therefore, I give very little weight to the Income Approaches provided by both parties to this hearing. 2. It appears illogical and disingenuous that the PET makes a request for a $6.3M just value. The owner just spent almost $6.5M for work associated with the building permit, plus there is an additional $2.94M in land value and impact fees (as estimated and well- supported by the PAO easily helps to support the contested just value. Other customary costs and entrepreneurial profit should have been considered, in addition to lease-up costs (to the level of occupancy on the assessment date). The PET presents cost data that fails to qualify as an `approach' conforming to generally accepted appraisal methods. The PET's Income Approach is very weak. 3.The PAO provides 3 approaches to value. The PAO's Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are given greater weight, as the subject is almost a new property and there is very good support for the land value and building value. The PAO provided four improved sales of very similar and modern properties that also are supportive of the just value. The PAO's cap rate in his Income Approach is likely low and should have had additional support from more self-storage industry surveys. Had the subject's owner provided the PAO with income/expense information during the course of 2019 (as requested twice in writing by the PAO to all commercial property owners) then the PAO likely would have had time to prepare a more detailed and accurate Income Approach better reflecting the subject's actual physical mix, rentable square feet, and revenues, and expenses. Thus, I give less weight to the PAO's Income Approach, due to very limited support for inputs (as was the case with the PET's Income Approach). 4.The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00371: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00371 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 17 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00372 Parcel ID 34595002440 Petitioner name MICHAEL DONOHUE Property 5304 USEPPAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 10,598,273.00 10,598,273.00 10,598,273.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,598,273.00 10,598,273.00 10,598,273.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,598,273.00 10,598,273.00 10,598,273.00 *AII 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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/30/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ 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 2019-00372 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00372: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Michael Donohue) did not attend the hearing but issued an email on the morning of hearing requesting that his evidence be entertained. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 3-story Extra Space Storage built in 2018 with 761 units. The subject's address is 5304 Useppa Way, Naples, Florida. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 106,248 SF situated upon a site of 92,582 SF (i.e. 2.13 acres). The PET reports the subject to be at 45% occupancy on the assessment date. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in April 2017 for $2,775,100, or $29.97/SF of site area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,598,273 or $100/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's special warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data (self- storage facilities), PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, impact fee calculations, building permit history [$7.61M subject permit], land appreciation study' exhibit, land sale aerials/details, & RERC return expectations by property type — 4th Quarter 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $34/SF X 92,582 SF = $3,147,788, plus $343,813 of impact fees for a total of$3,491,601 (which is 32.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators. Land Sale #6 was the prior land sale for the subject at $29.97/SF. Land 2019-00372 Page 2 of 4 Sale #4 ($33.67/SF) closed in February 2018 & is adjacent to the subject. It has a new hotel under construction. 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 $7,607,926, entrepreneurial profit at $1,921,193 & site improvements/ paving at $53,280, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$13,074,000 (before COS consideration). [Note: Even using the subject site's prior purchase price in April 2017, the just value then equates to 83.4% of the cost indicator of$12.7M]. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 4 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $134.69-$267.15/SF. The high end of the range is reflected by a 3-story climate-controlled building constructed in 2000 that is stabilized and near downtown Naples. Sale #2 is another 3-story climate-controlled building that was built in 2017 and sold for $206.36/gross SF, & it sits back from primary road frontage. It likely was not stabilized at the time of sale, but perhaps at least 50% occupied. Sale #3 ($198.77/gross SF) is a stabilized climate-controlled facility in Lee County built in 2008. It also has 90 open storage spaces as an added benefit. Sale #4 is another new (2017) climate-controlled 2-story facility at the I-75/Collier Boulevard interchange. It sold at approximately 35% occupancy, given it was in its lease-up phase following the completion of construction. Among the sales, #4 is the relatively similar in lease-up [but the subject is at 45% occupancy]. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 106,248 SF of adjusted area = $15,937,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). This approach appears to be worthy of strong weight. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $18.00/SF gross [applied to the PAO's estimated `rentable' area of 84,998 SF], vacancy/collection loss at 10.0% [same as PET], expenses at 35.0% [same as PET], and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [PET uses 8.6%] to NOI of$895,029 for a value indication of$11,188,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET did not appear at the hearing but did have evidence to be considered. The PET presents cost data & Income Approach. The PET provides a cover letter (requesting a value of$8M), Income Approach [$10.955M value], roster of new self-storage supply that came on line since 2017, AIA application for payment (showing over $5.245M of the $7.61M permit costs), closing statement for the site acquisition in 2017, and an exhibit showing the subject's occupancy statistics/unit mix [showing 45% SF occupancy, as of 12/31/2019 & 60% as of 7/1/2019]. THE PET DOES NOT INCLUDE A FORMAL 'COST APPROACH', as there is no land Market Value estimate, no entrepreneurial profit estimate, no impact fees, no lease-up costs [to the 45% level of occupancy], and no soft costs. While the PET's cover letter states a cost indication of$8M, there is no justification as to how that figure was derived. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's "Cost Approach" or 'cost data'. Simply providing a prior land sale acquisition and construction contract with a GC (that does not even amount to the building permit figure) is not a formal 'Cost Approach' prepared within generally accepted appraisal standards. THE PET PROVIDES AN INCOME APPROACH that has revenue based upon the annualization of the subject's monthly potential revenue in his unit mix exhibit. The PET 2019-00372 Page 3 of 4 then project's 15% vacancy, expenses at 32% of EGI, then applies a loaded cap rate of 8.6% (i.e. 7.5% + 1.1% millage rate) to the NOI, resulting in a value indication of $10.955M. The PET does not provide a market rent survey, cap rate survey, expense survey, and does not provide any of the subject's income/expense statements to date. There also discount for lease-up shown. The PET's Income Approach is very weak. RULING: 1.Assuming the PET's net rentable area is correct in his unit mix (which it probably is), the PAO appears to have overstated the subject's rentable area by 910 SF. The PAO uses 84,998 SF, while the PET uses 85,908 SF. Both the PAO and the PET have a variety of deficiencies in their support for inputs each uses. Both fail to provide a discount for lease-up, both have weak (or no) support for the cap rate [both use rates that are very high for this property type and age], both fail to show prevailing market rents for storage spaces, and both fail to support expenses. Therefore, I give very little weight to the Income Approaches provided by both parties to this hearing. 2. It appears illogical that the PET makes a request for a $8M just value. The GC pulled a permit for $7.61M for work, plus there is an additional $3.49M in land value and impact fees (as estimated and well-supported by the PAO easily helps to support the contested just value. Other customary costs and entrepreneurial profit should have been considered, in addition to lease-up costs (to the level of occupancy on the assessment date). The PET presents cost data that fails to qualify as an `approach' conforming to generally accepted appraisal methods. Also, the PET's Income Approach is very weak. 3.The PAO provides 3 approaches to value. The PAO's Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are given greater weight, as the subject is almost a new property and there is very good support for the land value and building value. The PAO provided four improved sales of very similar and modern properties that also are very supportive of the just value. The PAO's cap rate in his Income Approach is likely low and should have had additional support from more self-storage industry surveys. Had the subject's owner provided the PAO with income/expense information during the course of 2019 (as requested twice in writing by the PAO to all commercial property owners) then the PAO likely would have had time to prepare a more detailed and accurate Income Approach better reflecting the subject's actual physical mix, rentable square feet, and revenues, and expenses. Thus, I give less weight to the PAO's Income Approach, due to very limited support for inputs (as was the case with the PET's Income Approach). 4.The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00372: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00372 Page 4 of 4 I DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RRp8517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00373 Parcel ID 73620100799 Petitioner name MICHAEL DONOHUE Property Thepetitioner is: taxpayer of record 7391 RATTLESNAKE HAMMRD ❑ 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 9,258,536.00 9,258,536.00 9,258,536.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,258,536.00 9,258,536.00 9,258,536.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,258,536.00 9,258,536.00 9,258,536.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00373 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00373: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Michael Donohue) did not attend the hearing but issued an email on the morning of hearing requesting that his evidence be entertained. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an Extra Space Storage (3-story mini warehouse) built in 2018 with 754 units. The subject's address is 7391 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 106,797 SF situated upon a site of 146,797 SF (i.e. 3.37 acres). The PET reports the subject to be at 25% occupancy on the assessment date because the subject is new and is in its lease-up phase. (NOTE: This is a combined hearing for two petitions (TP-373 building/land & TP-374 adjacent raw land). PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no recent transfers of the subject in recent years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,107,956 or $95/SF of adjusted building area [which is the combination of TP-373 for $9,258,536 & TP-374 for $849,420 of this combined hearing.]. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's special warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data (self-storage facilities), PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, impact fee calculations, building permit history, land appreciation study' exhibit, land sale aerials/details, & RERC return expectations by property type — 4th Quarter 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $21/SF X 146,797 SF = 2019-00373 Page 2 of 4 $3,082,737, plus $234,024 of impact fees for a total of$3,316,761 (which is 32.8% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Land Sales #8 ($35.97/SF), #9 ($31 .57/SF), & #10 ($22.73/SF) were all purchased for the construction of self-storage facilities. Land Sales #5 ($19.82/SF) & #7 ($21.90/SF) are very close to 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 $7,692,921, entrepreneurial profit at $1,942,657 [i.e. 25% of the building value] & site improvements/paving at $70,767, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$13,023,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO's building value is closely supported by the actual permit value of$7.7M (rounded). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 4 sales. The sales have $/gross SF indicators that range from $134.69-$267.15/gross SF. The high end of the range is reflected by a 3-story climate-controlled building constructed in 2000 that is stabilized and near downtown Naples. Sale #2 is another 3-story climate-controlled building that was built in 2017 and sold for $206.36/gross SF, & it sits back from primary road frontage. It likely was not stabilized at the time of sale, but perhaps at least 50% occupied. Sale #3 ($198.77/gross SF) is a stabilized climate-controlled facility in Lee County built in 2008. It also has 90 open storage spaces as an added revenue benefit. Sale #4 ($134.69/SF) is another new (2017) climate-controlled 2-story facility at the I-75/Collier Boulevard interchange. It sold at approximately 35% occupancy, given it was in its lease-up phase following the completion of construction. Among the sales, #4 is the closest to the subject. The PAO concludes $150/gross SF X 106,792 SF of gross area = $16,019,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $18.00/SF gross [applied to the subject's adjusted SF], vacancy/collection loss at 10.0% [5% less than PET], expenses at 35.0% [5% more than PET], and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [PET uses 8.65%] to NOI of$899,616 for a value indication of$11,245,000, or $105.00/SF of adjusted space (before COS consideration). The PAO does not provide very much cap rate data for self- storage buildings; thus, the PAO's use of a loaded OAR of 8% appears slightly excessive for a new building (resulting in a slightly lower value indicator via this approach). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET did not appear at the hearing but did have evidence to be considered. The PET presents cost data & Income Approach. The PET provides a cover letter (requesting a value of$7M), Income Approach, roster of new self- storage supply that came on line since 2017, AIA application for payment (showing almost $6M of the $7.7M permit costs), and an exhibit showing the subject's occupancy statistics/unit mix [showing 25% SF occupancy, as of 12/31/2019]. The PET does not include a formal 'Cost Approach', as there is no land value estimate, no entrepreneurial profit estimate, no lease-up costs [to the 25% level of occupancy], and no soft costs. While the PET's cover letter states a cost indication of $8M, there is not justification as to how that figure was derived. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's "Cost Approach". It is noted there is a significant & unexplained difference between the building permit value and the AIA application for payment form's full contract amount 2019-00373 Page 3 of 4 with the CG. The PAO's Cost Approach value of the improvement portion much more closely agrees with the building permit amount & given far greater weight. THE PET PROVIDES AN INCOME APPROACH that has revenue based upon the annualization of the subject's monthly potential revenue in the PETs unit mix exhibit. The PET then project's 15% vacancy, expenses at 30% of EGI, then applies a loaded cap rate of 8.6% (i.e. 7.5% + 1.1% millage rate) to the NOI, resulting in a value indication of $7.541M. The PET does not provide a market rent survey, cap rate survey, expense survey, and does not provide any of the subject's income/expense statements to date. There also discount for lease-up shown. The PET's Income Approach is very weak. RULING: 1.It appears illogical that the PET makes a request for a $7M just value, given the owner just spent almost $7.7M for work associated with the building permit. The additional $3.3M in land value and impact fees (as estimated and well-supported by the PAO), plus site work, plus some degree of entrepreneurial profit & lease-up expenses easily helps to support the contested just value. 2.The PET presents cost data that fails to qualify as an `approach' conforming to generally accepted appraisal methods. There is no clear discussion of prevailing land values, and no discussion as to how the PET arrived at a cost indication of$8M. 3. The PET's Income Approach is very weak & not supported by market evidence or support. The PAO's Income Approach is also weak for similar reasons. The PAO's cap rate in his Income Approach is likely low and should have had additional support from more self-storage industry surveys. The PAO's total rentable area estimate is 6,889 SF greater than the used by the PET. Had the subject's owner provided the PAO with income/expense information during the course of 2019 (as requested twice in writing by the PAO to all commercial property owners) then the PAO likely would have had time to prepare a more detailed and accurate Income Approach better reflecting the subject's actual physical mix, rentable square feet, and revenues, and expenses. Thus, I give less weight to the PAO's Income Approach, due to very limited support for inputs (as was the case with the PET's Income Approach). 4.The PAO provides 2 other approaches to value. The PAO's Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are given greater weight, as the subject is almost a new property and there is very good support for the land value and building value. The PAO provided four improved sales of very similar and modern properties that also are supportive of the just value. 5.The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00373: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00373 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-0485 7 E VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 17 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00374 Parcel ID 73620100773 Petitioner name MICHAEL DONOHUE Property 8404 SIERRA MEADOWSDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 171 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 849,420.00 849,420.00 849,420.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 849,420.00 849,420.00 849,420.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 849,420.00 849,420.00 849,420.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00374 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00374: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mr. Michael Donohue) did not attend the hearing but issued an email on the morning of hearing requesting that his evidence be entertained. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an Extra Space Storage (3-story mini warehouse) built in 2018 with 754 units. The subject's address is 7391 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 106,797 SF situated upon a site of 146,797 SF (i.e. 3.37 acres). The PET reports the subject to be at 25% occupancy on the assessment date because the subject is new and is in its lease-up phase. (NOTE: This is a combined hearing for two petitions. TP-373 is the main building with its land underneath it. TP-374 is an adjacent site that is raw land.) PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no recent transfers of the subject in recent years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,107,956 or $95/SF of adjusted building area [which is the combination of TP-373 for $9,258,536 & TP-374 for $849,420 of this combined hearing.]. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's special warranty deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data (self-storage facilities), PwC cap rate analysis, property building card, impact fee calculations, building permit history, land appreciation study' exhibit, land sale aerials/details, & RERC return expectations by property type — 4th Quarter 2018. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $21/SF X 146,797 SF = 2019-00374 Page 2 of 4 $3,082,737, plus $234,024 of impact fees for a total of$3,316,761 (which is 32.8% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Land Sales #8 ($35.97/SF), #9 ($31.57/SF), & #10 ($22.73/SF) were all purchased for the construction of self-storage facilities. Land Sales #5 ($19.82/SF) & #7 ($21.90/SF) are very close to 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 $7,692,921, entrepreneurial profit at $1,942,657 [i.e. 25% of the building value] & site improvements/paving at $70,767, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$13,023,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO's building value is closely supported by the actual permit value of$7.7M (rounded). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 4 sales. The sales have $/gross SF indicators that range from $134.69-$267.15/gross SF. The high end of the range is reflected by a 3-story climate-controlled building constructed in 2000 that is stabilized and near downtown Naples. Sale #2 is another 3-story climate-controlled building that was built in 2017 and sold for $206.36/gross SF, & it sits back from primary road frontage. It likely was not stabilized at the time of sale, but perhaps at least 50% occupied. Sale #3 ($198.77/gross SF) is a stabilized climate-controlled facility in Lee County built in 2008. It also has 90 open storage spaces as an added revenue benefit. Sale #4 ($134.69/SF) is another new (2017) climate-controlled 2-story facility at the I-75/Collier Boulevard interchange. It sold at approximately 35% occupancy, given it was in its lease-up phase following the completion of construction. Among the sales, #4 is the closest to the subject. The PAO concludes $150/gross SF X 106,792 SF of gross area = $16,019,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $18.00/SF gross [applied to the subject's adjusted SF], vacancy/collection loss at 10.0% [5% less than PET], expenses at 35.0% [5% more than PET], and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% [PET uses 8.65%] to NOI of$899,616 for a value indication of$11,245,000, or $105.00/SF of adjusted space (before COS consideration). The PAO does not provide very much cap rate data for self- storage buildings; thus, the PAO's use of a loaded OAR of 8% appears slightly excessive for a new building (resulting in a slightly lower value indicator via this approach). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET did not appear at the hearing but did have evidence to be considered. The PET presents cost data & Income Approach. The PET provides a cover letter (requesting a value of$7M), Income Approach, roster of new self- storage supply that came on line since 2017, AIA application for payment (showing almost $6M of the $7.7M permit costs), and an exhibit showing the subject's occupancy statistics/unit mix [showing 25% SF occupancy, as of 12/31/2019]. The PET does not include a formal 'Cost Approach', as there is no land value estimate, no entrepreneurial profit estimate, no lease-up costs [to the 25% level of occupancy], and no soft costs. While the PET's cover letter states a cost indication of$8M, there is not justification as to how that figure was derived. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's "Cost Approach". It is noted there is a significant & unexplained difference between the building permit value and the AIA application for payment form's full contract amount 2019-00374 Page 3 of 4 with the CG. The PAO's Cost Approach value of the improvement portion much more closely agrees with the building permit amount & given far greater weight. THE PET PROVIDES AN INCOME APPROACH that has revenue based upon the annualization of the subject's monthly potential revenue in the PETs unit mix exhibit. The PET then project's 15% vacancy, expenses at 30% of EGI, then applies a loaded cap rate of 8.6% (i.e. 7.5% + 1.1% millage rate) to the NOI, resulting in a value indication of $7.541M. The PET does not provide a market rent survey, cap rate survey, expense survey, and does not provide any of the subject's income/expense statements to date. There also discount for lease-up shown. The PET's Income Approach is very weak. RULING: 1.It appears illogical that the PET makes a request for a $7M just value, given the owner just spent almost $7.7M for work associated with the building permit. The additional $3.3M in land value and impact fees (as estimated and well-supported by the PAO), plus site work, plus some degree of entrepreneurial profit & lease-up expenses easily helps to support the contested just value. 2.The PET presents cost data that fails to qualify as an `approach' conforming to generally accepted appraisal methods. There is no clear discussion of prevailing land values, and no discussion as to how the PET arrived at a cost indication of$8M. 3. The PET's Income Approach is very weak & not supported by market evidence or support. The PAO's Income Approach is also weak for similar reasons. The PAO's cap rate in his Income Approach is likely low and should have had additional support from more self-storage industry surveys. The PAO's total rentable area estimate is 6,889 SF greater than the used by the PET. Had the subject's owner provided the PAO with income/expense information during the course of 2019 (as requested twice in writing by the PAO to all commercial property owners) then the PAO likely would have had time to prepare a more detailed and accurate Income Approach better reflecting the subject's actual physical mix, rentable square feet, and revenues, and expenses. Thus, I give less weight to the PAO's Income Approach, due to very limited support for inputs (as was the case with the PET's Income Approach). 4.The PAO provides 2 other approaches to value. The PAO's Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are given greater weight, as the subject is almost a new property and there is very good support for the land value and building value. The PAO provided four improved sales of very similar and modern properties that also are supportive of the just value. 5.The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00374: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00374 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R 08517 VALUE PETITION DR -16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00377 Parcel ID 00275080004 Petitioner name MIKE WREN Property 1225 INDUSTRIALBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34104 Decision Summary I71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,902,266.00 2,902,266.00 2,902,266.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,043,383.00 2,043,383.00 2,043,383.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,043,383.00 2,043,383.00 2,043,383.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00377 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00377: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, and Liz Molina. 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. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00377: 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. 2019-00377 Page 2 of 2 FP; DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 121D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00381 Parcel ID 13803880003 Petitioner name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. Property 2000 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record El taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 7] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 6,019,565.00 6,019,565.00 6,019,565.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,019,565.00 6,019,565.00 6,019,565.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,019,565.00 6,019,565.00 6,019,565.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00381 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00381: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (GS Portfolio Holdings 2017, LLC.) did not attend the hearing but was represented by Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A. The PET issued an email requesting their evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is the former Sears department store at Coastland Mall. The subject was built in 1977. The subject's address is 2000 9th Street North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 152,088 SF situated upon a site of 511,092 SF (i.e. 11.73 acres). The building was in place on the January 1, 2019 assessment date; however, it was torn down after the assessment date. [Note: There is a Cheesecake Factory restaurant located on a leased land portion of the site, but it has two separate tax assessments exceeding $1.9M not associated with this hearing.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in July 2017 for $5.8M; however, that was not an arm's length transaction. Apparently, it was a partial interest conveyance. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$6,019,565, or $40/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. The CoStar sale write-up of the subject's recent sale is also provided. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $10,221,840 plus $3, 150, 176 of 2019-00381 Page 2 of 4 impact fees for a total of$13,372,016 (which is 222.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 12 commercial land sale indicators. The first 9 are `residuals' given little weight, plus 3 (i.e. #10, #11, and #12) actual land purchases that are considered highly relevant. The subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Tamiami Trail North at the Golden Gate Parkway intersection. 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 $4,351,846 & site improvements/paving at $266,988, resulting in a total Cost Approach (before COS consideration) estimate of$17,991,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63.48-$235.42/SF. The PAO concludes $125/SF X 152,088 SF = $19,011,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO does not give this approach much weight. Even if the PAO had used the lowest indicator of$63.48/SF, the resulting value would have been $9,655,000, which still would have supported the contested just value of$6,019,565. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12 SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 20.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,387,043 for a value indication of$18,494,000, or $125/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach. In fact, I give most weight to the well supported land value + impact fees = 222.2% of the PAO's total assessment. The PAO also gives most weight to the land value + impact fees. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 115 pages of evidence and included an Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and land sales. The PET provides an email to consider evidence for no show, a cover page, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's aerial photograph, ground-level photograph, comparable anchor and vacant sales, comparable rents, capitalization rate data, and industry overview and articles on big boxes and declining malls. The PET's cover letter argues that the building portion ($3,412,006) of their total assessment is excessive. While the PET provides an Income Approach and some improved sales, that data is really not relevant to the main problem, which is support for the land value. Simply stated, the land value (plus impact fees) is the foundation for the subject's value and H&BU. This property has been appealed almost every year over the past decade. Given it had gone dark and given this is an old regional mall 'big box', it appears all parties tend to agree the structure is of no particular significance in the market (which is why it had been torn down by this hearing date). THE PET'S LAND SALES fail to offer comparability to the subject. PET's sale #1 is the recent sale of the subject, which has already been disregarded as a partial interest transaction that does not reflect market value. Land Sale #2 is a multi-family tract that was a disqualified sale (because it was multi-folio) much further away from the subject (with some agricultural zoning) and a different H&BU than the subject. Sale #3 is a wooded tract 6-7 miles from Naples. Sale #4 sold in May 2019 & is not timely for consideration at this hearing. The PET does not address or consider any impact fees, which (in the subject's case) are very significant at more than $3.1M. Basically, the PET's presentation is grossly inadequate to address the subject's land value and H&BU 2019-00381 Page 3 of 4 as required by FS 193.011 (2), and location FS 193.011 (3). RULING: The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO with localized commercial land sales data & impact fees. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00381: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00381 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00382 Parcel ID 69030000587 Petitioner name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. Property 1467 RAIL HEAD BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,020,155.00 1,020,155.00 1,020,155.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 870,368.00 870,368.00 870,368.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 870,368.00 870,368.00 870,368.00 *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 The PET did not attend the hearing, did not submit any evidence, and did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B),F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/30/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00382 Page 1 of 1 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RRo85i7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00394 Parcel ID 67080680001 Petitioner name BLUE MARLIN STATIONS LLC Property 4716 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: IZ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑/ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 928,698.00 928,698.00 928,698.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 893,902.00 893,902.00 893,902.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 893,902.00 893,902.00 893,902.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/20/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00394 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00394: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The owner (Blue Marlin Stations, LLC.) was represented by Petitioner Mr. Daniel Klug, who did not attend the hearing but submitted an email requesting their evidence should be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a convenience store with gas pumps built in 1988. The subject's address is 4716 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 2,400 SF situated upon a site of 47,096 SF (i.e. 1.08 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in September 2009 for $3,125,000. That transaction likely included business value (if any), TPP, and the real property because the doc stamps were probably paid on the entire purchase price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$928,698 or $387/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, building permit information, CoStar comparable rental data, CoStar convenience store cap rate data, confidential convenience store (with gas pumps) rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 survey, and impact fee calculations. At the hearing, I did accept additional back-up evidence from the PAO related to aerial photos & other details related to PAO land sales that were already in the record. This was not new evidence, just clarification evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF ($941,913), plus $153,065 2019-00394 Page 2 of 5 of impact fees for a total of$1,094,978 (which is 117.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators. Many of the sales had been previously developed; thus, they had impact fee credits. The average of the 10 sales was $21.72/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 $362,734 & site improvements/paving at $45,302, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$1,503,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 17 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that (in most cases) appear to include TPP, business value, and possibly other features that make comparability very difficult. This is especially true when dealing with relatively small (but valuable) commercial sites on busy streets (and/or corners) with often very small building areas. The first 13 sales are leased fee sales. The last 4 sales are banks (with canopies) that are really different property types that are not comparable. While the PAO attempts to derive value indictors from the data presented, the PAO gives this approach little weight. I give it NO WEIGHT when it comes to determining the subject's fee simple value. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $55/SF gross to the convenience store, plus $2/SF X 12,380 SF for the canopy. Vacancy/collection loss is estimated at 10%, expenses at 30%, and the PAO applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$98,759 for a value indication of$1,182,000, or $493/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does have confidential rent comps of convenience stores with gas pumps in his evidence package from the Naples area, along with cap rate support. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 40 pages of timely evidence before the hearing, and then 46 pages of additional rebuttal evidence on the day of the hearing (via email). The PET is requesting a just value of$703,683, which is a reduction request of$225,015. The PET prepares all 3 approaches to value. THE PET INCLUDES A COST APPROACH with a value of$801,400. The PET uses Marshall Valuation for the building portion. The PET estimates land value at $8.50/SF ($400.313) but fails to consider the impact fees of$153,065. The PET's land value input is based upon the assessed allocated amount, which is not proper methodology. The PET should use actual land sales from the market, as was done within the PAO's Cost Approach. The PET's `extra features' value of$25,000 is also for unknown items, but assuming it is for general site work (not counting any TPP), it appears inadequate for general paving, drainage, & landscaping for a site of this size. Mainly because the PET fails to consider any site sales from the market, I give the PET's Cost Approach NO WEIGHT. It fails to conform to generally accepted appraisal methodology. THE PET INCLUDES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH based upon 4 sales. No weight is given to Sale #4, because it is in a remote (rural) location in Immokalee. PET's Improved Sale #1 is actually a land sale for $40.17, given it was torn down. Race Trac expanded on adjacent parcels for a new (and larger) gas station. PET's Improved Sale #2 was also PAO's Improved Sale #3, which appears to be a valid sale, but an outlier. It sold for $171/SF of building area, or $15.48/SF of its site area & now is operated as a boat 2019-00394 Page 3 of 5 dealership. PET's Improved Sale #3 was also PAO's Improved Sale #4, which also appears to be a valid sale. It closed for $547/SF of building area [without the car wash & storage room], but it does have triple the subject's site area. The PET concludes an average price/SF of building of$243.02 X 2,400 SF = $583,248 for the subject. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon $21.24/SF, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 6.0%. The PET concludes a value of$726,408. The PET bases his rental rate on Fort Lauderdale (Broward County) retail asking rate rental statistics for the 2nd half of 2018. The PET also pulls 4 rents from the South Trail area for small retail spaces not far from the subject, but they are all from multi-tenant strip centers (not freestanding corner locations like the subject). The PET provides CBRE cap rate information, based upon the South Florida/West Palm Beach market area. The PET also provides RERC yield and cap rate data for 1st tier investments (which the subject is not). THE PET INCLUDES 46 PAGES OF REBUTTAL DATA. In the first exhibit the PET compares 2019 land assessments used by the PAO's 10 land sales exhibit. Next, the PET analyzes the PAO's roster of improved sales, and I am not sure what exactly the PET is trying to prove or portray, but the PET gives weight to the two common improved sales that both use. It appears the PET is trying to show the price/SF indicators of those two sales is greater than the subject's assessment/SF, but the PET uses different building sizes. The PET attaches CoStar back-up sheets for the various PAO sales as part of the rebuttal evidence. RULING: Given the property type, it is important to not lose sight of the fact that the subject's fee simple value is basically the land value, plus any impact fees. The building area is typically very small and could be removed in a matter of hours for many other alternate uses. Therefore, the land value (and impact fees) are the most important considerations with this type of property. Corner sites with busy traffic are often suitable for other types of uses, such as banks & fast food restaurants. The subject's entire just value equates to $19.72/SF of site area. The PET's Cost Approach is given no weight, as it was not properly prepared. I do not give any particular significance or much weight to the Income Approach, given the building sizes are small and the land value is really what is at issue. It is interesting to note the PET provides 3 improved salesfrom the subject's area worthy of consideration, while no weight is given to PET's 4th sale in a remote location. The average sales price per square foot of site area for the PET's 3 improved sales are $40.17 (for 18,295 SF), $15.48 (for 38,768 SF), and $13.63 for (157,687 SF). The average of those $/SF indicators is $23.10/SF [based on an average site area of 71,583 SF], which inherently includes associated impact fees with each. The subject's just value equates to $19.72/SF (with inherent impact fees). Thus, the subject's just value is 85% of the PET's average indicator per SF of land area, which is supportive of the PAO's assessment, and it allows for adequate COS consideration. And I would tend to agree with the PAO that PET's Improved Sale #2 (which is PAO's Improved Sale #3) is a low sale that drives down that average. In conclusion, small corner sites with high visibility are the driving force of value when there are very small buildings associated with them. Such buildings are easily replaced 2019-00394 Page 4 of 5 and demolished. This means the analysis of building sales and the use of the Income Approach can often be skewed and less reliable than simply analyzing the data in terms of the land. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00394: 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. 2019-00394 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR 018/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00395 Parcel ID 00168040601 Petitioner name JOSEPH MINOTT Property 1100 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address CI other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 26,692,648.00 26,692,648.00 26,692,648.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 23,875,855.00 23,875,855.00 23,875,855.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 23,875,855.00 23,875,855.00 23,875,855.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/26/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axi20 ❑ 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 2019-00395 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00395: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. Joseph Minott on behalf of the owner (Scripps NP Operating, LLC.). The PET did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting to have evidence in the record considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is the Naples Daily News property, which was built in 2009. The subject's address is 1100 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 201,375 SF situated upon a site of 864,666 SF (i.e. 19.85 acres). The subject is owner-occupied. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has not been a transfer of the subject in the last five years; however, the subject previously sold for $23,075,000 in December 2006 (before the building was constructed). That price equates to $26.89/SF of land area. JUST VALUE CONTESTED & EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$26,692,648, which equates to $132.55/SF of adjusted building area, or $30.87/SF of the total land area. Both parties submitted evidence into the record prior to this hearing. Unless stated otherwise in this ruling, the evidence is considered material, relevant, and credible, unless stated otherwise. Evidence (if any) submitted at the hearing will be identified. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$26,692,648. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, land sales supportive data/aerials, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's 2006 deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales sheets, PwC cap rate analysis, PwC ENC Region Warehouse Market, RERC Return Expectations by Property Type (4th Quarter 2018), building permit (for $30M back in 2008) and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15/SF, or $12,969,990, plus $748,239 of impact fees for a total of$13,718,229 (which is 51.4% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sales dating back to 2011. 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 at $20,570,536 & site improvements/paving at $522,442, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$34,811,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. It is worthy to note the subject originally had a $30M building permit back in 2007 prior to its eventual completion in 2008. 2019-00395 Page 2 of 4 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 3 sales that have $/SF indicators that range from $86.53-$235.98/SF, with an average of$140.28. Sale #1 is a leased fee sale with FED Ex as the tenant. It sold for $98.34/SF in Ft. Myers. Sale #2 is an owner/user food manufacturing/distribution tilt-up building with 65,101 SF near the I-75/Collier Boulevard interchange. It was built in 2012 and sold for $86.53/SF. Sale #3 is also close to the same I-75 interchange. Sale #3 is a leased fee sale that closed back in 2014 (with a lease expiring in 2022) to Shaw Aero Design & Manufacturing. This structure is much more similar to the subject with a mix of more than 54,000 SF of office space, as well as 65,000 SF of manufacturing space. Sale #3 was built in 1999 and it closed in 2014 for $235.98/SF. The PAO concludes $140/SF X 201,375 SF = $28,193,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross for 128,803 SF of office area, $15/SF gross for 72,572 SF of production/warehouse space, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 20.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to the NOI of $2,785,126 for a value indication of$33,965,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET (Duff& Phelps out of Chicago) submitted 22 pages of evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET does not provide a Cost Approach. The PET provides a description of subject's improvements, subject's aerial, subject's ground photographs, comparable sales grid, comparable sales map, RealtyRates.com market cap rate data and asking lease rates, comparable summary data, power of attorney, DR-486, and an email to consider evidence. The PET seeks a value reduction to $12,800,000. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $9.00/SF rent applied to 114,372 SF, 5% vacancy, $72,140 expenses, and an apparent loaded cap rate of 7.05% (7.00%+0.05% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$12,800,000 (before any COS deduction). The PET basically makes a mess of the Income Approach by missing 114,372 SF (i.e. 56.8%) of the building area. Also, the PET uses an incorrect millage rate of a half of a percent when loading the cap rate. The PET's Income Approach is NOT CREDIBLE and given ZERO weight. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 8 improved sales that closed between 2015-2018. Sale #1 is the PAO's Sale #3, as previously described ($86.53/SF). The remaining 7 sales are scattered throughout the southern half of Florida's coastal cities. The PET basically makes the same major error in the Sales Comparison Approach by again missing 114,372 SF (i.e. 56.8%) of the building area when he applies the concluded $111.92/SF rate to the subject's 114,3 72 SF [actually it has 201,3475 SF]. The PET's Sales Comparison Approach is NOT CREDIBLE and given ZERO weight. The largest building in the PET's survey contained 75,056 SF. If sales are going to be searched around the southern half of Florida, many more buildings closer to 200,000 SF could have been located. RULING: It is noted that there was a substantial increase in the subject's just value of 23% from 2018 to 2019; thus, it is understandable for any owner experiencing a significant increase from the prior year to question the assessment. The PAO 2019-00395 Page 3 of 4 acknowledged significant increases to many properties in Collier County, given many assessments remained lower during 2018 as local owners were still in the recovery process from a hurricane in 2017. Regardless, each year's assessment (and VAB hearing) stands on its own merits and evidence submitted. The PET presented two approaches to value, yet both are not credible, as more than half of the subject's building area was missed by the PET. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET has failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00395: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00395 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DRRo85 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FSI RIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00397 Parcel ID 00255087302 Petitioner name ROB NOVOA Property 5665 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address 111 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary IZ1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 5,809,587.00 5,809,587.00 5,809,587.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,692,005.00 3,692,005.00 3,692,005.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,692,005.00 3,692,005.00 3,692,005.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/26/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00397 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00397: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. 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. Petition numbers 2019-00397 and 2019-00398 are adjacent, improved parcels under the same ownership and both parcels are used for the auto dealership of Rick Hendrick Chevrolet. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows. The TRIM values have not changed. Petition Just Value Petition number 2019-397 $5,809,587 Petition number 2019-398 $4,961,001 Total $10,770,588 PAO described the property an auto dealership with one-and two-story portions that include a showroom, service areas and offices with several exterior canopies. The total area of the auto dealership buildings is 35,349-sf, an unfinished parts mezzanine area of 4,556-sf and a car wash of 672-sf. The land size is 502,744-sf or 11.54 acres. The building was built in 1989/30 years old with an effective age of 20 years. The property sold in October 2015, for $14,500,000. The properties are located at 5665 Airport Road, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00397 Page 2 of 9 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.") PAO 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 of which 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 63 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, subject location map, zoning map and sketch of the property-building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach and includes location maps for the land and improved sales. The addenda contains the subject deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, operating expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees for the property with building permits issued for the subject, the CoStar listing for the subject with photo and details of the sale in 10/2015, and the subject property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. At the hearing, PAO provided 13 pages of evidence, as additional support for PAO's land sales. The additional information consists of an aerial with details of each land sale in PAO's report. All evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to March 2019. The land sales range in size from 72,297-sf to 635,540- sf. The adjusted sale price for all the sales, after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvements for sales # 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 ranges from $18.16 to $56.17/ sf. The mean of all the sales is $31.33/sf and the median is $30.38/sf. Sales # 1, 9 and 11 are vacant land sales of current of proposed auto dealerships. Sale # 11 sold in7/14, but was included to provide support, Sale # 9 is a portion of a parcel that recently sold and originally formed part of a land sale for an auto dealership. Sale # 1, sold in 3/19, but was negotiated before January 1, 2019 and therefore was included; this is the recent sale of a parcel to be improved with an auto dealership. Sale # 1 sold for $30.38/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $20.00/sf x 502,744-sf or $10,055,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. 2019-00397 Page 3 of 9 PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $3,079,116, impact fees at $658,311, and the land value is estimated at $10,054,880 for a total cost of $13,792,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 8 sales of auto dealerships that sold in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from October 2015 (the sale of the subject) to January 2018. The sales range in building size from 7,958-sf to 44,001-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 70,128-sf to 537,966-sf with a building to land ratio ranging from 4% to 17%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 7%. The buildings were built from 1987 to 2007. The sales range from $292.10 to $444.28/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$362.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$361.00/sf of building area including land. Sales # 3 and 4 are located just north of the subject on Airport Road. These two properties sold in March 2017 for $292.10 and $444.28/sf respectively. Sale # 4 is similar in building and land size to the subject and indicates the upper end of value. PAO reconciled a value at $360.00/sf of building area including land or $12,726,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys, dated 2018 for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors , CBRE, REIS, Calkain Research, National Real Estate Advisors, CoStar-all real estate survey companies and from Collier County confidential reports (information provided by property owners in Collier County). The rents range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/sf. PAO provides rents for auto dealerships from confidential sources in the range of$14.07 to $54.06/sf with a mean of $30.65/sf. PAO used a blended rent of$20.00/sf for all the area of the dealership including the office space, service area, mezzanine and car wash for a gross rent of $706,980. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at a mean 13.69%. PAO provides vacancies for auto dealerships from confidential sources in the range of 2.67% to 8%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $35,349. The effective gross income (EGI) is $671,631. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier 2019-00397 Page 4 of 9 County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to EGI) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 13.69%. Auto dealerships in Collier County indicate a range from 7% to 12% with a mean of 9.5%. PAO used an expense ratio of 15% of EGI or $100,745. The net operating income (NOI) is $570,886. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Auto dealerships indicate a range of cap rates from 6.6% to 7% with a mean of 6.80%. PAO used a cap rate of 6% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$570,886 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$7,612,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. PAO indicated that auto dealerships are purchased for their location and not the income they can generate. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach in estimating value. 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 2019-00397 Page 5 of 9 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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. 2019-00397 Page 6 of 9 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. For each petition 2019-397 and 2019-398, PET presented a report containing 5-pages. Each report consisted of details for of the subject property including building size, land size, just value and PET's estimate of value. PET included an aerial of the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach and provides a cost analysis and estimate of value for each of the subject petitions. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. Petition # 2019-397-PET presented the Cost Approach as an average Class C building with an area of 23,812-sf and a land size of 7.82 acres. PET used a base cost of$57.50/sf and added for sprinklers $2.00/sf, then applied the local current and local multipliers of 1.008 for a total estimated cost of$59.98/sf. PET applied this cost to an area of 23,812-sf for a total building cost of$1,428,149. PET depreciated the building 43% for a depreciated building value of$816,085. PET added the depreciated site improvements of $82,900 and the land value of$4,524,569 for an estimated value of$5,420,000. Petition # 2019-398-PET presented the Cost Approach as an average Class C building with an area of 11,104-sf and a land size of 3.6 acres. PET used a base cost of$90.00/sf and added for sprinklers $2.00/sf, then applied the local current and local multipliers of 1.008 for a total estimated cost of$92.74/sf. PET applied this cost to an area of 11,104-sf for a total building cost of$1,029,741. PET depreciated the building 43% for a depreciated building value of$588,423. PET added the depreciated site improvements of $243,000 and the land value of$3,134,646 for an estimated value of$3,970,000. PET's estimate of value for Petition # 2019-397 is $5,420,000 PET's estimate of value for Petition # 2019-398 is $3,970,000 Total $9,390,000 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the assessed value for the land and not a value based on current market land sales. PAO indicated PET used slightly different land and building sizes than PAO used, which indicates a lower value. PAO indicated PET did not include the cost of the large canopies and impact fees to their cost which would increase the value. PAO indicated the impact fees on this site are $658,311 for both parcels. Also, PAO indicated the property was purchased in October 2015 for $14,500,000, substantially above the current just value of$10,770,588 for both parcels. SM has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided current land sales in Collier County to support their land value at $10,055,000 plus impact fees of$658,311 which indicates a value of$10,713,311 for both petitions 2019-397 and 398, almost the current just value without adding any building improvements. PET does not provide current land sales for their land value; PET used the assessed land value from Collier County. 2019-00397 Page 7 of 9 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. Following are the just values for each petition and a total for both parcels. Petition Just Value Petition number 2019-397 $5,809,587 Petition number 2019-398 $4,961,001 Total $10,770,588 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00397: 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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 2019-00397 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00397 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 7J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00398 Parcel ID 00254960006 Petitioner name ROB NOVOA Property 5665 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address D other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 4,961,001.00 4,961,001.00 4,961,001.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,479,689.00 3,479,689.00 3,479,689.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,479,689.00 3,479,689.00 3,479,689.00 *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) EI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/26/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00398 Page 1 of 9 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00398: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. 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. Petition numbers 2019-00397 and 2019-00398 are adjacent, improved parcels under the same ownership and both parcels are used for the auto dealership of Rick Hendrick Chevrolet. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows. The TRIM values have not changed. Petition Just Value Petition number 2019-397 $5,809,587 Petition number 2019-398 $4,961,001 Total $10,770,588 PAO described the property an auto dealership with one-and two-story portions that include a showroom, service areas and offices with several exterior canopies. The total area of the auto dealership buildings is 35,349-sf, an unfinished parts mezzanine area of 4,556-sf and a car wash of 672-sf. The land size is 502,744-sf or 11.54 acres. The building was built in 1989/30 years old with an effective age of 20 years. The property sold in October 2015, for $14,500,000. The properties are located at 5665 Airport Road, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00398 Page 2 of 9 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.") PAO 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 of which 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 63 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, subject location map, zoning map and sketch of the property-building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach and includes location maps for the land and improved sales. The addenda contains the subject deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, both interior and exterior, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, operating expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees for the property with building permits issued for the subject, the CoStar listing for the subject with photo and details of the sale in 10/2015, and the subject property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. At the hearing, PAO provided 13 pages of evidence, as additional support for PAO's land sales. The additional information consists of an aerial with details of each land sale in PAO's report. All evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to March 2019. The land sales range in size from 72,297-sf to 635,540- sf. The adjusted sale price for all the sales, after extraction of impact fee credits and depreciated improvements for sales # 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 ranges from $18.16 to $56.17/ sf. The mean of all the sales is $31.33/sf and the median is $30.38/sf. Sales # 1, 9 and 11 are vacant land sales of current of proposed auto dealerships. Sale # 11 sold in7/14, but was included to provide support, Sale # 9 is a portion of a parcel that recently sold and originally formed part of a land sale for an auto dealership. Sale # 1, sold in 3/19, but was negotiated before January 1, 2019 and therefore was included; this is the recent sale of a parcel to be improved with an auto dealership. Sale # 1 sold for $30.38/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $20.00/sf x 502,744-sf or $10,055,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. 2019-00398 Page 3 of 9 PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $3,079,116, impact fees at $658,311, and the land value is estimated at $10,054,880 for a total cost of $13,792,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 8 sales of auto dealerships that sold in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from October 2015 (the sale of the subject) to January 2018. The sales range in building size from 7,958-sf to 44,001-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 70,128-sf to 537,966-sf with a building to land ratio ranging from 4% to 17%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 7%. The buildings were built from 1987 to 2007. The sales range from $292.10 to $444.28/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$362.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$361.00/sf of building area including land. Sales # 3 and 4 are located just north of the subject on Airport Road. These two properties sold in March 2017 for $292.10 and $444.28/sf respectively. Sale # 4 is similar in building and land size to the subject and indicates the upper end of value. PAO reconciled a value at $360.00/sf of building area including land or $12,726,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys, dated 2018 for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors , CBRE, REIS, Calkain Research, National Real Estate Advisors, CoStar-all real estate survey companies and from Collier County confidential reports (information provided by property owners in Collier County). The rents range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/sf. PAO provides rents for auto dealerships from confidential sources in the range of$14.07 to $54.06/sf with a mean of $30.65/sf. PAO used a blended rent of$20.00/sf for all the area of the dealership including the office space, service area, mezzanine and car wash for a gross rent of $706,980. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at a mean 13.69%. PAO provides vacancies for auto dealerships from confidential sources in the range of 2.67% to 8%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $35,349. The effective gross income (EGI) is $671,631. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier 2019-00398 Page 4 of 9 County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to EGI) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 13.69%. Auto dealerships in Collier County indicate a range from 7% to 12% with a mean of 9.5%. PAO used an expense ratio of 15% of EGI or $100,745. The net operating income (NOI) is $570,886. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Auto dealerships indicate a range of cap rates from 6.6% to 7% with a mean of 6.80%. PAO used a cap rate of 6% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$570,886 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$7,612,000 rounded for both petitions # 2019-397 and #2019-398. PAO indicated that auto dealerships are purchased for their location and not the income they can generate. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach in estimating value. 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 2019-00398 Page 5 of 9 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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. 2019-00398 Page 6 of 9 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. For each petition 2019-397 and 2019-398, PET presented a report containing 5-pages. Each report consisted of details for of the subject property including building size, land size, just value and PET's estimate of value. PET included an aerial of the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach and provides a cost analysis and estimate of value for each of the subject petitions. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. Petition # 2019-397-PET presented the Cost Approach as an average Class C building with an area of 23,812-sf and a land size of 7.82 acres. PET used a base cost of$57.50/sf and added for sprinklers $2.00/sf, then applied the local current and local multipliers of 1.008 for a total estimated cost of$59.98/sf. PET applied this cost to an area of 23,812-sf for a total building cost of$1,428,149. PET depreciated the building 43% for a depreciated building value of$816,085. PET added the depreciated site improvements of $82,900 and the land value of$4,524,569 for an estimated value of$5,420,000. Petition # 2019-398-PET presented the Cost Approach as an average Class C building with an area of 11,104-sf and a land size of 3.6 acres. PET used a base cost of$90.00/sf and added for sprinklers $2.00/sf, then applied the local current and local multipliers of 1.008 for a total estimated cost of$92.74/sf. PET applied this cost to an area of 11,104-sf for a total building cost of$1,029,741. PET depreciated the building 43% for a depreciated building value of$588,423. PET added the depreciated site improvements of $243,000 and the land value of$3,134,646 for an estimated value of$3,970,000. PET's estimate of value for Petition # 2019-397 is $5,420,000 PET's estimate of value for Petition # 2019-398 is $3,970,000 Total $9,390,000 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET used the assessed value for the land and not a value based on current market land sales. PAO indicated PET used slightly different land and building sizes than PAO used, which indicates a lower value. PAO indicated PET did not include the cost of the large canopies and impact fees to their cost which would increase the value. PAO indicated the impact fees on this site are $658,311 for both parcels. Also, PAO indicated the property was purchased in October 2015 for $14,500,000, substantially above the current just value of$10,770,588 for both parcels. SM has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided current land sales in Collier County to support their land value at $10,055,000 plus impact fees of$658,311 which indicates a value of$10,713,311 for both petitions 2019-397 and 398, almost the current just value without adding any building improvements. PET does not provide current land sales for their land value; PET used the assessed land value from Collier County. 2019-00398 Page 7 of 9 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. Following are the just values for each petition and a total for both parcels. Petition Just Value Petition number 2019-397 $5,809,587 Petition number 2019-398 $4,961,001 Total $10,770,588 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00398: 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. 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 2019-00398 Page 8 of 9 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. 2019-00398 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR 485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00399 Parcel ID 25118010048 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 8831 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record I71 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,567,204.00 3,567,204.00 3,567,204.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,962,596.00 2,962,596.00 2,962,596.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,962,596.00 2,962,596.00 2,962,596.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00399 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00399: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Ms. Deneen Maly. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET stated she has exhausted her administrative remedies. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00399: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing, but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00399 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITIONR.0 17 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00402 Parcel ID 61942360009 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 5296 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34103 other, explain: Decision Summary I71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,108,783.00 3,108,783.00 3,108,783.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,750,268.00 2,750,268.00 2,750,268.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,750,268.00 2,750,268.00 2,750,268.00 4A11 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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim I ❑ 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 2019-00402 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00402: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Ms. Deneen Maly. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET stated she has exhausted her administrative remedies. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00402: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing, but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00402 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. 7J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00403 Parcel ID 34569500127 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 2375 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,522,593.00 2,522,593.00 2,522,593.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,289,851.00 2,289,851.00 2,289,851.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,289,851.00 2,289,851.00 2,289,851.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00403 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00403: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Ms. Deneen Maly. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET stated she has exhausted her administrative remedies. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00403: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing, but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00403 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 1-36 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00404 Parcel ID 00196760005 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 5410 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34109 other, explain: Decision Summary LJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,088,919.00 3,088,919.00 3,088,919.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,811,113.00 2,811,113.00 2,811,113.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,811,113.00 2,811,113.00 2,811,113.00 *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) J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00404 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00404: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Ms. Deneen Maly. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET stated she has exhausted her administrative remedies. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00404: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing, but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00404 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.01/ V R.01/17 [a, VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. LORI Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. FA These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00405 Parcel ID 19013000004 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 294 9TH STS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary IZ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,645,704.00 2,645,704.00 2,645,704.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,092,824.00 2,092,824.00 2,092,824.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,092,824.00 2,092,824.00 2,092,824.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00405 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00405: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Ms. Deneen Maly. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET stated she has exhausted her administrative remedies. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00405: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing, but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00405 Page 2 of 2 raj DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORI Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00406 Parcel ID 00726725009 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 6800 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record NAPLES, FL 3R4114 BLVD Q taxpayer's agent address FL 34114 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,428,540.00 3,428,540.00 3,428,540.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,320,736.00 3,320,736.00 3,320,736.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,320,736.00 3,320,736.00 3,320,736.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00406 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00406: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Ms. Deneen Maly. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET stated she has exhausted her administrative remedies. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00406: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing, but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00406 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V E VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 t F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00407 Parcel ID 00406600606 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 7380 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,356,122.00 3,356,122.00 3,356,122.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,268,286.00 3,268,286.00 3,268,286.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,268,286.00 3,268,286.00 3,268,286.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00407 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00407: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Ms. Deneen Maly. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET stated she has exhausted her administrative remedies. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00407: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing, but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00407 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V Fa: VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORICollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00410 Parcel ID 00296240001 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 1600 WELLESLEY CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record El taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 29,736,978.00 29,736,978.00 29,736,978.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 29,736,978.00 29,736,978.00 29,736,978.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 29,736,978.00 29,736,978.00 29,736,978.00 *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) 171 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/16/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/17/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ 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 2019-00410 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00410: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Alvista Golden Gate) was represented by Ms. Deneen Maly. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 200-unit apartment complex, now known as `Alvista Golden Gate'. It was built in 1988, which means the subject is 31 years old. Due to renovations, the PAO estimates the subject's effective age at 10 years. The subject's address is 1600 Wellesley Circle, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 192,436 SF situated upon a site of 753,588 SF (i.e. 17.30 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on December 4, 2018 for $34,650,000, or $173,250/unit. The subject's assessment equates to 85.8% of this very recent sales price. According to the CoStar sale description, 21 of the 200 units were `down', due to hurricane damages; thus, occupancy was 86% near the time of closing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$29,736,978, or $155/SF of adjusted building area, or $148,685 per unit. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions, aerial photograph, location map, zoning map, tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion [of two methods], Income Approach, photographs of the subject, recent warranty deed, photographs of the comparable sales, multi-family cap rates, Collier field rental survey data, tax credit field survey data, PwC Regional Apartment Markets article/cap rate analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, subject website rental data, & impact fee calculations. The subject's CoStar description of the subject's recent sale is also provided. At the hearing, I also accepted 12 pages of supplemental land sales back-up date from the PAO & shared a copy with the PET. This was not new information. It was extra data to help clarify the PAO's land sales information already in evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & 2019-00410 Page 2 of 5 credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $13,500,000, plus $2,297,950 of impact fees for a total of$15,797,950 (which is 53.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was a reconciliation of a $/SF and $/unit methodology based upon the 12 land sale indicators. Eight of the 12 were `residual' indicators given less weight, while 4 were actual site sales (i.e. #3, 4, 8, & 12) given primary weight. Eleven of the 12 indicators closed during 2016 — 18, yet Land Sale #12 closed in late 2013. The PAO derives land rates of$18/SF and $66,500 per buildable unit from the data, then reconciles them to $13,500,000. 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 $13,823,564 & site improvements/paving at $795,833, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate [correction to the PAO's math] of $30,417,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The estimate was a reconciliation of a $/SF and $/unit methodology, which was then reconciled to a conclusion of$34,500,000 (after TPP deduction, but before any COS consideration). Giving primary weight to the December 2018 sale of the subject (i.e. Sale #1), the PAO concludes $180/SF X 192,436 SF = $34,638,000, less TPP of$113.909, or $34,524,000 (rounded) for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Sales #5 & #7 appear to provide good comps to `bracket;' the high & low indicators for the subject, given those two sales have fairly similar `average unit size' indictors & both sales are in a similar area of the southeastern part of the greater Naples area. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $1,375/month for the subject's 136 2/2 units, and $1,225/month for the subject's 64 1/1 units, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 35.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 6.5% to NOI of$1,966,614 for a preliminary value indication of$30,256,000, less TPP of$113,909 = $30,142,000 (rounded, before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 102 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a cover page, property details, the subject's tax roll summary sheet, aerial photograph, subject's CoStar summary sheet, exterior photographs, subject's deed, cost report prepared by Madison Specs (dated December 2018), pro-forma Income Approach analysis, subject's rent roll, roster of 21 down units/rent loss, subject's TRIM notice, email from Lori Settle with Phoenix Realty Group, subject's CoStar details [classifying the subject as a 4-star property], CoStar rent comps, CoStar sales comparable sheets, Situs RERC Report (4th Quarter 2018), CBRE cap rate survey, CoStar sale of Noah's Landing apartments, & Form DR-493. The PET seeks a value reduction to $26,715,992 [a figure revised at the hearing per PET's verbal testimony]. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon $1,270/ month, 5% vacancy, other income of$152,400, 32.81% expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 6.41%. The PET concludes a value of$26,715,992 (after 15% COS deduction). THE PET INCLUDES A COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH based on a CoStar- generated study of just 4 sales within a 3-mile radius of the subject. One of the 4 sales is 2019-00410 Page 3 of 5 the subject's December 2018 sale. First, there is no reason to limit the sales search of a property of this magnitude to such a small radius of 3 miles, as the sales search should have (at a minimum) included the entire county. Lee County could have also been included, if insufficient Collier sales were provided. Page 74 of PET's evidence provides a summary of the sales showing the subject's 2018 sale and the remaining 3 sales that all closed in 2019, well AFTER the assessment date. Thus, other than the subject's sale, the PET fails to provide any other relevant sales information leading up to the assessment date. RULING: 1. The subject last sold on December 4, 2018 for $34,650,000, or $173,250/unit. The subject's assessment equates to 85.8% of this very recent sales price allowing for reasonable COS consideration. 2. The cost report prepared by Madison Specs (dated December 2018) for the subject's owner concluded total project costs of$34,650,000. 3. The buyer was aware of the 21 down units (due to hurricane damage) at the time of closing; thus, the purchase price would have reflected the costs to bring those units back into service. 4.The CoStar sale details of the subject note that the subject's purchase was financed with a $26.44M (76.3%) loan from a bank, which would have required an appraisal to complete the transaction. Had the subject appraised for a value less than the sales price, the subject's owner could have provided a copy with a copy of that appraisal. However, the owner did provide Ms. Maly with the Madison Specs cost report (as mentioned) with total project costs of$34,650,000. 5.While the PET did perform a CoStar sales search, she was unable to locate any conventional apartment sales that closed prior to the assessment date to refute the PAO's just value. The 3 sales she did provide all closed well after the assessment date. In the back of the PET's evidence package (and not within the PET's Sales Comparison Approach), the PET includes the October 2018 sale of a 'tax credit' property (sold as part of a package of 4 complexes) that had a reported price of$113,636/unit. Because that sale has regulated controls in order to be participating in the LITCH program, it is not a relevant sale comparable for a normal apartment complex (as Ms. Maly is well aware). The PET was unable to present any relevant market sales prior to the assessment date to refute the assessment. 6. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00410: 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 2019-00410 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00410 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DRRo85 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00411 Parcel ID 00393600007 Petitioner name RICK BROWN C/O IAC Property 3761 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34112 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,476,710.00 3,476,710.00 3,476,710.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,365,171.00 2,365,171.00 2,365,171.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,365,171.00 2,365,171.00 2,365,171.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/23/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00411 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00411: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A),F.A.C) SM read the petitioner number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $3,476,710. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2019-00411 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R x8517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00412 Parcel ID 66760002162 Petitioner name RICK BROWN C/O IAC Property 6275 NAPLESBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34109 other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12,855,269.00 12,855,269.00 12,855,269.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 11,262,618.00 11,262,618.00 11,262,618.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 11,262,618.00 11,262,618.00 11,262,618.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/23/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00412 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00412: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A),F.A.C) SM read the petitioner number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $12,855,269. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2019-00412 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 rd VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00415 Parcel ID 00254840003 Petitioner name KELSEY DIBERT Property 2495 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,245,776.00 1,245,776.00 1,245,776.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,112,502.00 1,112,502.00 1,112,502.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,112,502.00 1,112,502.00 1,112,502.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/15/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00415 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00415: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $1,245,776. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C building, retail convenience store with gas pumps; occupied by Mobil. The building area is 912-sf with a 4,320-sf gas canopy and a 900-sf car wash. The land size is 42,123-sf or .97 acres. The building was built in 1986 with an effective age of 1986; the car wash was built in 1988 with an effective age of 1988. The property is located at 2495 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 72 pages. The report included the evidence and 2019-00415 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees, permits issued to the property, and the subject 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 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County and all sales were vacant at time of sale. The land sales occurred from April 2016 to September 2018. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 124,582-sf; the adjusted sale price ranges from $21.67 to $55.54/sf. The mean of all the sales is $33.22/sf and the median is $33.00/sf. PAO indicated sales # 3, 4 and 5 are similar in size to the subject and most weight was placed on these sales. These sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 47,053-sf and sold from 10/17 to 12/17. The sales range in value from $33.00 to $36.88/sf with an average of$34.66/sf PAO reconciled a value at $33.00/sf x 42,123-sf or $1,390,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $212,425, impact fees at $152,441, and the land value is estimated at $1,390,059 for a total cost of$1,755,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 15 sales of properties in Naples and Collier County. The sales occurred from November 2015 to October 2018. The sales range in age from 1983 to 2002. Sales # 1 to 12 are all gas stations with convenience stores and are leased fee estates; sale # 11 is the sale of the subject in November 2015 for $1,470,000 or $1,612/sf of store area only and $239.73/sf of all structures including the canopy and car wash. PAO analyzed the sales based on the square footage of the store only; and also analyzed the sales based on the total square footage of all the structures on the site, which includes the store, canopies and car wash if any. The stores only, range in size from 900-sf to 8,534-sf, the subject has an area of 912-sf. The total area of all the buildings ranges from 1,085-sf to 12,360-sf, the subject has a total of 6,132-sf. The land size of the sales ranges from 14,625-sf to 166,978-sf with a land to building ratio of 2% to 13%, the subject has a ratio of 2.2%. 2019-00415 Page 3 of 8 Sales # 13 to 15 are single tenant buildings. These sales are fee simple estates. Sale # 13 is similar in size to the subject at 1,085-sf. Sales # 14 and 15 are older bank buildings with canopies that have been converted to office space. These sales range in size from 1,085-sf to 3,475-sf.; the sales range from $391.00 to $1,169.00/sf for the store area only and $310.29 to 479.42/sf for the area of all structures on the site. All the sales range, for the store area only, from $171.00 to $3,618/sf of building area including land, with a mean of$1,238.00/sf and a median of$1,169.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1,500/sf of building area including land or $1,368,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$226,501 for an indicated value of$1,141,000 rounded. All the sales range, for the total of all the building areas, from $99.67 to $1.105.99/sf with a mean of$479.00/sf and a median of$469.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $300.00/sf of building area including land or $1,840,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$226,601 for an indicated value of$1,613,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value by the Sales Comparison at $1,400,000 PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean retail rent of$21.67/sf. PAO included, from confidential sources, a rent for a convenience store with gas pumps in Collier County at $58.99/sf. PAO used a rent of$55.00/sf of building area (912-sf) for a rent of$50,160. PAO applied a rent of$15.00/sf for the car wash (900-sf) for a rent of$13,500. PAO applied a rent of $5.00/sf for the gas canopy(4,320-sf) for a rent of$21,600. The total potential gross income is $85,260. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at 13.69%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $8,526. 2019-00415 Page 4 of 8 PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 14.00%. PAO included, from confidential sources, an expense ratio for convenience stores with gas pumps in Collier County at 38%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $23,020. The net operating income (NOI) is $53,714. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Free standing retail buildings from national surveys indicates a cap rate of 6.91%; CoStar indicate a cap rate of 6.2% in Collier County. PAO used a cap rate of 6.4% and loaded the tax rate of 1.1% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$53,714 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$716,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$226,501 which indicates a value of$489,000 rounded. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach for an indication of value. 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. 2019-00415 Page 5 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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 2019-00415 Page 6 of 8 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 3-pages which consisted of a cover letter and comparable improved sales with a description and photo of each sale. PET included a location map of the subject and the comparable sales. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided five improved sales located in Naples and Collier County. The improved sales sold from April 2018 to November 2018. The sales range in age from 1982 to 2004. The buildings are a service station, two restaurants, a retail condominium and an auto repair facility. The sales range in building size from 1,824-sf to 3,500-sf with an indicated value range from $171.43/sf to $750.34/sf of building area including land. PET concluded a value of $582.00/sf of building area including land or $1,054,075. PET allocates a land value of$1,053,075 and improvement value of$1,000 for a total of $1,054,075. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's service station sale included three parcels indicating a lower value/sf. PET's sale # 2 and 4 are retail condominiums, Sale # 3 is a restaurant located west of the subject on Pine Ridge Road and is a free-standing building. Sale # 5 is located in an industrial area and not comparable in location. PET does not provide land sale comparables or support for the land value. PAO provided multiple land sales for support of their land value. PAO indicated the land value only plus impact fees for the subject total $1,542,440, which is more than the current just value. SM reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO's land value is well supported with recent land sales. PET's improved sales are not comparable to the subject in use and location. PET provides a land value but does not provide sales support for the land 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 2019-00415: 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 2019-00415 Page 7 of 8 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 PRO'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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 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. 2019-00415 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 1/ R. 01 s R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier CountyEff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00416 Parcel ID 09410000303 Petitioner name KELSEY DIBERT Property 1353 3RD STS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address 0 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented 5( , F.A.C.appraiser Rule 12D-9.0025(110)0), Action 1. Just value, required 1,741,065.00 1,741,065.00 1,741,065.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 626,005.00 626,005.00 626,005.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 626,005.00 626,005.00 626,005.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/15/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00416 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00416: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $1,741,065. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C building, retail convenience store; occupied by 7-Eleven. The building area is 3,000-sf. The land size is 10,000-sf or .23 acres. The building was built in 1966 with an effective age of 1989. The property is located in an affluent area of Naples. The property is located at 1353 3rd Street South, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 44 pages. The report included the evidence and 2019-00416 Page 2 of 7 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees, permits issued to the property, and the subject 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 8 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples, in close proximity to the subject. Sale # 2, which occurred in March 2011, was the previous land sale of sale # 1. All the sales are residual land values, PAO extracted impact fees and depreciated building values for a land value on these sales. The neighborhood of the subject is an older area of Naples and is fully built out. The land sales occurred from February 2017 to January 2018. The land sales range in size from 5,990-sf to 34,170-sf; the adjusted sale price ranges from $150.15 to $346.85/sf. The mean of all the sales is $258.15/sf and the median is $265.76/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $250.00/sf x 10,000-sf or $2,500,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $217,037, impact fees at $23,521, and the land value is estimated at $2,500,000 for a total cost of$2,741,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. PAO used the same sales to estimate the land value and the improvement value. The sales occurred from February 2017 to January 2018. The sales range in building size from 2,800-sf to 7,550-sf; and range in age from 1941 to 2001. The land size ranges from 5,990-sf to 19,485-sf; with a land to building ratio of 24% to 72%, the subject has a ratio of 30%. The adjusted sale price ranges from $420.53 to $1,491.48/sf. The mean of all the sales is $841.00/sf and the median is $867.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $800.00/sf x 3,000-sf or $2,400,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents along 3rd Street South and 5th Avenue South (downtown Naples). These rents were provided by CoStar, a national market survey report, and provides local information in the subject neighborhood, Also, PAO provides information from confidential sources (property owners provide information to PAO on a confidential basis). The average rents along 5th Avenue South from these sources range from $44.89 2019-00416 Page 3 of 7 to $56.00/sf of building area. The average rents along 3rd Street South range from $25.19 to $39.00/sf PAO used a rent of$40.00/sf of building area (3,000-sf) for a rent potential gross income is $120,000. PAO provided vacancy support from the reports mentioned above in the range of 9.33% to 16.67% for 5th Avenue South properties and 7.05% to 9.4% for properties along 3rd Street South. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $6,000. PAO provided support for operating expenses from the same sources as above, and the range of expense ratio (expenses to net income) is 19% to 32%. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% or $28,500. The net operating income (NOI) is $85,500. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from the same sources as above. The cap rates range from 5.65 to 7.5%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.4% and loaded the tax rate of 1.1% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$85,500 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$1,140,000 rounded. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach for an indication of value. 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 2019-00416 Page 4 of 7 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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. 2019-00416 Page 5 of 7 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 4-pages which consisted of a cover letter and comparable improved sales with a description and photo of each sale. PET included a location map of the subject and the comparable sales. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided eight improved sales located in Naples and Collier County. The improved sales sold from February 2018 to November 2018. The sales range in age from 1966 to 2001. The improved sales include a daycare facility, vacant fast food restaurant, retail condo, freestanding retail building, auto repair store, gas station and former bank building. The sales range in building size from 988-sf to 4,600-sf with an indicated value range from $171.43/sf to $608.70/sf of building area including land. PET concluded a value of$549.00/sf of building area (3,000-sf) including land or $1,646,000. PET allocates a land value of$1,645,000 and improvement value of$1,000 for a total of $1,646,000. PAO indicated PET's improved sales # 1 and 2 are shared sales to PAO's improved sales #1 and 2. Both these sales are in the subject neighborhood and provide a good indication of value. The building size for PET's sale # 1 is 3,000-sf and not 3,750-sf which would indicate a price per square foot of$683.33 for this sale. The remaining of PET's improved sales are in different areas where property values are substantially lower. PET does not provide land sale comparables or support for the land value. PAO indicated the bulk of the value for the subject in in the land value only estimated at $2,400,000 which is more than the current just value. SM reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. PET provided two good sales in the subject area and correlated at a lower value. The remaining of PET's sales are located in areas not comparable to the subject neighborhood. 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 2019-00416: 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 2019-00416 Page 6 of 7 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 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. 2019-00416 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. EJ These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00419 Parcel ID 25368002026 Petitioner name KELSEY DIBERT Property Thepetitioner is: taxpayer of record NAPLES, FLTAMI3 113 E ❑ � taxpayer's agent address FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 12:1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' 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 1,575,347.00 1,575,347.00 1,575,347.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,417,988.00 1,417,988.00 1,417,988.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,417,988.00 1,417,988.00 1,417,988.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/15/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00419 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00419: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $1,575,347. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C building, retail convenience store with gas pumps; occupied by 7-Eleven. The building area has 2,980-sf with a 4,690-sf gas canopy. The land size is 46,609.2-sf or 1.07 acres. The building was built in 2001 with an effective age of 2004. The property is located at 12750 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 58 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, 2019-00419 Page 2 of 8 limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees, permits issued to the property, and the subject 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 10 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. Land sales # 2 7 and 8 are residual land values, PAO extracted impact fees and depreciated building values for a land value on these three sales. The land sales occurred from April 2016 to September 2018. The land sales range in size from 25,500-sf to 102,802-sf; the adjusted sale price ranges from $24.11 to $38.68/sf. The mean of all the sales is $30.35/sf and the median is $32.55/sf. PAO indicated sales #1, 2, 7 and 9 are all located along Tamiami Trail East and similar in location. These sales range in size from 35,500-sf to 72,297-sf and sold from 10/17 to 9/18. The sales range in value from $22.12 to $38.68/. PAO reconciled a value at $30.00/ sf x 46,609-sf or $1,398,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $608,318, impact fees at $154,435, and the land value is estimated at $1,398,276 for a total cost of$2,161,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 17 sales of properties in Naples and Collier County. The sales occurred from November 2015 to October 2018. The sales range in age from 1983 to 2002. Sales # 1 to 13 are all gas stations with convenience stores and are leased fee estates. PAO analyzed the sales based on the square footage of the store only; and also analyzed the sales based on the total square footage of all the structures on the site, which include the store, canopies and car wash if any. The stores only range in size from 912-sf to 8,534-sf, the subject has a store area of 2,980-sf. The total area of all the buildings ranges from 3,780-sf to 12,360-sf, the subject has a total of 7,670-sf. The land size of the sales ranges from 14,625-sf to 166,978-sf with a land to building ratio of 2% to 13%, the subject has a ratio of 6.4%. Sales # 14 to 17 are single tenant former bank buildings with canopies. These sales are 2019-00419 Page 3 of 8 fee simple estates. These sales range in size from 1,668-sf to 5,710-sf.; the sales range from $352 to $1,169/sf for the store area only. The total building area for these sales ranges from 3,968 to 7,152-sf and range from $281.04 to $491.43/sf for the area of all structures on the site. All the sales range, for the store area only, from $171.00 to $2,134/sf of building area including land, with a mean of$1,135/sf and a median of$849.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $600.00/sf of building area including land or $1,788,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$201,082 for an indicated value of$1,587,000 rounded. All the sales range, for the total of all the building areas, from $99.67 to $905.76/sf with a mean of$430.00/sf and a median of$461.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $300.00/sf of building area including land or $2,303,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of 201,082 for an indicated value of$2,102,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value by the Sales Comparison at $1,850,000. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean retail rent of$21.67/sf. PAO included, from confidential sources, a rent for a convenience store with gas pumps in Collier County at $58.99/sf. PAO used a rent of$55.00/sf of building area (2,980-sf) for a rent of$163,900. PAO applied a rent of$5.00/sf for the gas canopy(4,690-sf) for a rent of$23,450. The total potential gross income is $187,350. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at 13.69%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $18,735. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean 2019-00419 Page 4 of 8 of 14.00%. PAO included, from confidential sources, an expense ratio for convenience store with gas pumps in Collier County at 38%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $50,585. The net operating income (NOI) is $118,031. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Free standing retail buildings from national surveys indicates a cap rate of 6.91%; CoStar indicate a cap rate of 6.2% in Collier County. PAO used a cap rate of 6.4% and loaded the tax rate of 1.1% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$118,031 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$1,574,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$201,082 which indicates a value of$1,373,000 rounded. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach for an indication of value. 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 2019-00419 Page 5 of 8 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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. 2019-00419 Page 6 of 8 PET presented a report containing 3-pages which consisted of a cover letter and comparable improved sales with a description and photo of each sale. PET included a location map of the subject and the comparable sales. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided four improved sales located in Naples and Collier County. The improved sales sold from February 2018 to October 2018. The sales range in age from 1966 to 1990. The improved sales include a daycare facility, a retail condo, a vacant fast food restaurant and a former bank building. The sales range in building size from 988-sf to 3,404-sf with an indicated value range from $182.11/sf to $556.68/sf of building area including land. PET concluded a value of$433.00/sf of building area (2,980-sf) including land or $1,289,080. PET allocates a land value of$1,165,230 and improvement value of$123,850 for a total of$1,289,080. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's improved sales are not comparable to the subject convenience store with gas pumps. PET does not provide land sale comparables or support for the land value at $1,165,230. PAO provided multiple land sales along Tamiami trail East to support the subject land value; also, the improvements contribute substantially to the property. The majority of PAO's improved sales are convenience stores with gas pumps, similar to the subject. SM reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. PET's improved sales are not convenience stores with gas pumps. PAO provided ample sales of convenience stores with gas pumps. 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 2019-00419: 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 2019-00419 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 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. 2019-00419 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R VALUE PETITION R. 2 Rule 12D-166.0.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00420 Parcel ID 57490920002 Petitioner name KELSEY DIBERT Property 600 BALD EAGLEDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 other, explain: Decision Summary 1 Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ 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 802,748.00 802,748.00 802,748.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 672,703.00 672,703.00 672,703.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 672,703.00 672,703.00 672,703.00 *AII 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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/15/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00420 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00420: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $802,748. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C building, retail convenience store with gas pumps; occupied by 7-Eleven. The building area is 2,585-sf with a 960-sf gas canopy. The land size is 20,581.38-sf or .47 acres. The building was built in 1984 with an effective age of 1994. The property is located at an intersection with a traffic light. The property is located at 600 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 57 pages. The report included the evidence and 2019-00420 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees, permits issued to the property, and the subject 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located on Marco Island. Land sales # 3, 4 and 6 are residual land values, PAO extracted impact fees and depreciated building values for a land value on these three sales. The land sales occurred from May 2016 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 17,000-sf to 50,656-sf; the adjusted sale price ranges from $21.60 to $61.04/ sf. The mean of all the sales is $40.10/sf and the median is $42.65/sf. PAO indicated sales # 5, 8 and 9 are located in close proximity to the subject and range in size from 24,084-sf to 37,512-sf and sold from 6/17 to 6/18. The sales range in value from $29.87 to $42.65/sf with an average of$37.67/sf PAO reconciled a value at $40.00/ sf x 20,581-sf or $823,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $277,066, impact fees at $59,440, and the land value is estimated at $823,255 for a total cost of$1,160,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 18 sales of properties on Marco Island and Collier County. The sales occurred from March 2017 to October 2018. The sales located north of Marco Island are all gas stations with convenience stores and are leased fee estates. PAO has five sales on Marco Island that consist of a funeral home, Burger King, and two retail stores; four of the properties are fee simple and one is leased fee estate. PAO analyzed the sales based on the square footage of the store only; and also analyzed the sales based on the total square footage of all the structures on the site, which include the store, canopies and car wash if any. The stores only, range in size from 900-sf to 8,534-sf, the subject has an area of 2,585-sf. The total area of all the buildings ranges from 2,857-sf to 12,360-sf, the subject has a total of 3,545-sf. The land size of the sales ranges from 15,625-sf to 166,978-sf with a land to building ratio of 2% to 25%, the subject has a ratio of 12.6%. The buildings were built from 1985 to 2017. 2019-00420 Page 3 of 8 The sales range, for the store area only, from $229.00 to $3,618/sf of building area including land, with a mean of$1,029.00/sf and a median of$686.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $500.00/sf of building area including land or $1,293,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$169,364 for an indicated value of$1,124,000 rounded. The sales range, for the total of all the building areas, from $184.34 to $905.76/sf with a mean of$416.00/sf and a median of$408.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $400.00/sf of building area including land or $1,418,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of $169,364 for an indicated value of$1,294,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value by the Sales Comparison at $1,200,000 PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/ sf. PAO included, from confidential sources, a rent for a convenience store with gas pumps in Collier County at $58.99/sf. PAO used a rent of$55.00/sf of building area (2,585-sf) for a rent of$142,175. PAO applied a rent of$5.00/sf for the gas canopy(960-sf) for a rent of$4,800. The total potential gross income is $146,975. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at 13.69%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $14,218. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 14.00%. PAO included, from confidential sources, an expense ratio for convenience stores with gas pumps in Collier County at 38%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $39,827. The net operating income (NOI) is $92,930. 2019-00420 Page 4 of 8 PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Free standing retail buildings from national surveys indicates a cap rate of 6.91%; CoStar indicate a cap rate of 6.2% in Collier County. PAO used a cap rate of 6.4% and loaded the tax rate of 1.1% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$92,930 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$1,239,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$169,364 which indicates a value of$1,070,000 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 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 2019-00420 Page 5 of 8 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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. PET presented a report containing 3-pages which consisted of a cover letter and comparable improved sales with a description and photo of each sale. PET included a location map of the subject and the comparable sales. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided four improved sales located on Marco Island. The improved sales sold from March 2017 to May 2018. The sales range in age from 1973 to 1987. The buildings 2019-00420 Page 6 of 8 are a funeral home, retail auto repair facility, a retail building and a restaurant. The sales range in building size from 1,320-sf to 4,230-sf with an indicated value range from $124.00 to $284.09/sf of building are including land. PET concluded a value of$257/sf of building area including land or $664,442. PET allocates a land value of$638,023 and improvement value of$26,419 for a total of $664,442. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET and PAO share a sale located at 577 E Elkcam Circle, which is a funeral home that sold in May 2018 for $210.40/sf, however, PAO placed most emphasis on the sales with convenience stores with gas pumps. PAO indicated PET's sales are not comparable, one sale is an auto repair store, a restaurant, funeral home and a small retail building. PET does not provide land sale comparables or support for the land value at $638,023. PAO provided multiple land sales with three sales in close proximity to the subject. PAO indicated the land value only plus impact fees for the subject total $882,695, which is more than the current just value. SM reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO's land value is well supported with three vacant land sales in close proximity to the subject. PET's evidence was located on Marco Island, but the building sales utilized are not comparable to the subject. PET provides a land value but does not provide sales support for the land 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 2019-00420: 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 2019-00420 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's value is understated. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 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. 2019-00420 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. EJ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00421 Parcel ID 57872000003 Petitioner name KELSEY DIBERT Property 641 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition El Granted your petition El Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presenteby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9d.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,363,184.00 1,363,184.00 1,363,184.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,047,455.00 1,047,455.00 1,047,455.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,047,455.00 1,047,455.00 1,047,455.00 *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) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/15/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axion ❑ 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 2019-00421 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00421: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $1,363,184. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C building, retail convenience store with gas pumps; occupied by 7-Eleven. The building area is 2,496-sf with a 2,100-sf gas canopy. The land size is 26,571.6-sf or .61 acres. The building was built in 1982 with an effective age of 1989. The property is located at 641 South Collier Boulevard, Marco Island FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 58 pages. The report included the evidence and 2019-00421 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees, permits issued to the property, and the subject 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 11 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located on Marco Island. Land sales # 3, 4 and 6 are residual land values, PAO extracted impact fees and depreciated building values for a land value on these three sales. The land sales occurred from May 2016 to November 2018. The land sales range in size from 17,000-sf to 50,656-sf; the adjusted sale price ranges from $21.60 to $61.04/ sf. The mean of all the sales is $40.10/sf and the median is $42.65/sf. PAO indicated sales # 5, 8 and 9 are located on Marco Island; these sales range in size from 24,084-sf to 37,512-sf and sold from 6/17 to 6/18. The sales range in value from $29.87 to $42.65/sf with an average of$37.67/sf PAO reconciled a value at $50.00/sf x 26,572-sf or $1,329,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $226,472, impact fees at $89,161, and the land value is estimated at $1,328,580 for a total cost of$1,644,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 18 sales of properties on Marco Island and Collier County. The sales occurred from March 2017 to October 2018. The sales located north of Marco Island are all gas stations with convenience stores and are leased fee estates. PAO has five sales on Marco Island that consist of a funeral home, Burger King, and two retail stores; four of the properties are fee simple and one is leased fee estate. PAO analyzed the sales based on the square footage of the store only; and also analyzed the sales based on the total square footage of all the structures on the site, which include the store, canopies and car wash if any. The stores only, range in size from 900-sf to 8,534-sf, the subject has an area of 2,496-sf. The total area of all the buildings ranges from 2,857-sf to 12,360-sf, the subject has a total of 4,596-sf. The land size of the sales ranges from 15,625-sf to 166,978-sf with a land to building ratio of 2% to 25%, the subject has a ratio of 9.4%. The buildings were built from 1985 to 2017. 2019-00421 Page 3 of 8 The sales range, for the store area only, from $229.00 to $3,618/sf of building area including land, with a mean of$1,029.00/sf and a median of$686.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $650.00/sf of building area including land or $1,622,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$226,413 for an indicated value of$1,396,000 rounded. The sales range, for the total of all the building areas, from $184.34 to $905.76/sf with a mean of$416.00/sf and a median of$408.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $400.00/sf of building area including land or $1,838,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of $226,413 for an indicated value of$1,612,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value by the Sales Comparison at $1,500,000 PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/ sf. PAO included, from confidential sources, a rent for a convenience store with gas pumps in Collier County at $58.99/sf. PAO used a rent of$55.00/sf of building area (2,496-sf) for a rent of$137,280. PAO applied a rent of$5.00/sf for the gas canopy(2,100-sf) for a rent of$10,500. The total potential gross income is $147,780. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at 13.69%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $14,778. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 14.00%. PAO included, from confidential sources, an expense ratio for convenience stores with gas pumps in Collier County at 38%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $39,901. The net operating income (NOI) is $93,101. 2019-00421 Page 4 of 8 PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Free standing retail buildings from national surveys indicates a cap rate of 6.91%; CoStar indicate a cap rate of 6.2% in Collier County. PAO used a cap rate of 6.4% and loaded the tax rate of 1.1% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$93,101 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$1,241,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$226,413 which indicates a value of$1,015,000 rounded. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach in estimating value. 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 2019-00421 Page 5 of 8 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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. PET presented a report containing 3-pages which consisted of a cover letter and comparable improved sales with a description and photo of each sale. PET included a location map of the subject and the comparable sales. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2019-00421 Page 6 of 8 PET provided four improved sales located on Marco Island. The improved sales sold from March 2017 to May 2018. The sales range in age from 1973 to 1987. The buildings are a funeral home, retail auto repair facility, a retail building and a restaurant. The sales range in building size from 1,320-sf to 4,230-sf with an indicated value range from $124.00 to $284.09/sf of building area including land. PET concluded a value of $479.00/sf of building area including land or $1,196,722. PET allocates a land value of$1,195,722 and improvement value of$1,000 for a total of $1,196,722. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET and PAO share a sale located at 577 E Elkcam Circle, which is a funeral home that sold in May 2018 for $210.40/sf, however, PAO placed most emphasis on the sales with convenience stores with gas pumps .PAO indicated PET's sales are not comparable, one sale is an auto repair store, a restaurant, funeral home and a small retail building. PET does not provide land sale comparables or support for the land value at $1,195,722. PAO provided multiple land sales with three sales on Marco Island. PAO indicated the land value only plus impact fees for the subject total $1,418,200, which is more than the current just value. SM reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO's land value is well supported with three vacant land sales in close proximity to the subject. PET's evidence was located on Marco Island, but the building sales utilized are not comparable to the subject. PET provides a land value but does not provide sales support for the land 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 2019-00421: 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. 2019-00421 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 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. 2019-00421 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V a R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. j These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00425 Parcel ID 63518000186 Petitioner name KELSEY DIBERT Property 2490 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ1 taxpayer's agent address 0 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' 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 1,769,503.00 1,769,503.00 1,769,503.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,588,899.00 1,588,899.00 1,588,899.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,588,899.00 1,588,899.00 1,588,899.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/15/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00425 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00425: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $1,769,503. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C building, retail convenience store with gas pumps; occupied by 7-Eleven. The building area has 3,168-sf with a 3,648-sf gas canopy and a 648-sf car wash. The land size is 54,450-sf or 1.25 acres. The building was built in 1999 with an effective age of 1999. The property is located at 2490 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples FL. PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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.") PAO 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 63 pages. The report included the evidence and 2019-00425 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data for rents, vacancies, expenses and capitalization rates (cap rates), impact fees, permits issued to the property, and the subject 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 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County and all sales were vacant at time of sale. The land sales occurred from April 2016 to September 2018. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 124,582-sf; the adjusted sale price ranges from $21.67 to $55.54/sf. The mean of all the sales is $33.22/sf and the median is $33.00/sf. PAO indicated sales # 3, 4 and 5 are similar in size to the subject and most weight was placed on these sales. These sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 47,053-sf and sold from 10/17 to 12/17. The sales range in value from $33.00 to $36.88/sf with an average of$34.66/sf PAO reconciled a value at $33.00/sf x 54,450-sf or $1,797,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $531,487, impact fees at $152,441, and the land value is estimated at $1,796,850 for a total cost of$2,481,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 17 sales of properties in Naples and Collier County. The sales occurred from November 2015 to October 2018. The sales range in age from 1983 to 2002. Sales # 1 to 13 are all gas stations with convenience stores and are leased fee estates; sale # 9 is the sale of the subject in December 2016 for $6,761,500 or $2,134.00/sf of store area only and $905.76/sf of all structures including the canopy and car wash. PAO analyzed the sales based on the square footage of the store only; and also analyzed the sales based on the total square footage of all the structures on the site, which include the store, canopies and car wash if any. The stores only range in size from 912-sf to 8,534-sf, the subject has a store area of 3,168-sf. The total area of all the buildings ranges from 3,780-sf to 12,360-sf, the subject has a total of 7,464-sf. The land size of the sales ranges from 14,625-sf to 166,978-sf with a land to building ratio of 2% to 13%, the subject has a ratio of 5.8%. 2019-00425 Page 3 of 8 Sales # 14 to 17 are single tenant former bank buildings with canopies. These sales are fee simple estates. These sales range in size from 1,668-sf to 5,710-sf.; the sales range from $352 to $1,169/sf for the store area only. The total building area for these sales ranges from 3,968 to 7,152-sf and range from $281.04 to $491.43/sf for the area of all structures on the site. All the sales range, for the store area only, from $171.00 to $2,134/sf of building area including land, with a mean of$1,135/sf and a median of$849.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $800.00/sf of building area including land or $2,534,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$393,333 for an indicated value of$2,141,000 rounded. All the sales range, for the total of all the building areas, from $99.67 to $905.76/sf with a mean of$430.00/sf and a median of$461.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $350.00/sf of building area including land or $2,612,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of $393,333 for an indicated value of$2,129,000 rounded. PAO reconciled the value by the Sales Comparison at $2,200,000 PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean retail rent of$21.67/sf. PAO included, from confidential sources, a rent for a convenience store with gas pumps in Collier County at $58.99/sf. PAO used a rent of$55.00/sf of building area (3,168-sf) for a rent of$174,240. PAO applied a rent of$15.00/sf for the car wash (648-sf) for a rent of$9,720. PAO applied a rent of$5.00/sf for the gas canopy(3,648-sf) for a rent of$18,240. The total potential gross income is $202,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 range from 1.10% to 37.7% with a mean of 7.22% and a median of 3.70%. CoStar has a mean vacancy for free standing retail buildings at 13.69%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $20,220 PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on 2019-00425 Page 4 of 8 various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 14.00%. PAO included, from confidential sources, an expense ratio for convenience store with gas pumps in Collier County at 38%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $54,594. The net operating income (NOI) is $127,386. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with a mean of 6.91%. Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.23% to 6.70% for 4Q 2018; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.50% to 6.20%. Free standing retail buildings from national surveys indicates a cap rate of 6.91%; CoStar indicate a cap rate of 6.2% in Collier County. PAO used a cap rate of 6.4% and loaded the tax rate of 1.1% for a total cap rate of 7.50%. The NOI of$127,386 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of$1,698,000 less Tangible Personal Property (TPP) of$393,333 which indicates a value of$1,305,000 rounded. PAO placed most emphasis on the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach for an indication of value. 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 2019-00425 Page 5 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 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 or actual 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 54-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. 2019-00425 Page 6 of 8 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 3-pages which consisted of a cover letter and comparable improved sales with a description and photo of each sale. PET included a location map of the subject and the comparable sales. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided three improved sales located in Naples and Collier County. The improved sales sold from April 2017 to November 2018. The sales range in age from 1990 to 2001. Two sales are of retail condominiums and one is the sale of a former bank building. The sales range in building size from 1,824-sf to 3,404-sf with an indicated value range from $223.88/sf to $425.97/sf of building area including land. PET concluded a value of $425.00/sf of building area (3,817-sf) including land or $1,622,225. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's sale # 3 is a shared sale with PAO's # 15, a former bank building that sold for $425.97/sf, however, PAO placed most emphasis on the sales with convenience stores with gas pumps. PAO indicated PET's sales are not comparable to the subject gas station. PET does not provide a land value. PAO indicated the bulk of the value for the subject is in the land. PAO indicated the land value only plus impact fees for the subject total $1,949,291, which is more than the current just value. SM reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO's land value is well supported with recent land sales. PET's improved sales are not comparable to the subject in use. 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 2019-00425: 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. 2019-00425 Page 7 of 8 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 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET's value is understated. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 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. 2019-00425 Page 8 of 8 FPI DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-0485 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. V These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00431 Parcel ID 71750000305 Petitioner name TONY GARCIA Property 4370 THOMASSON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 11,982,431.00 10,835,177.00 10,835,177.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,540,217.00 10,540,217.00 10,540,217.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,540,217.00 10,540,217.00 10,540,217.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/30/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00431 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00431: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Tony Garcia, who did not attend the hearing. He did issue an email requesting that his evidence should be entertained. The owner is PRU Hammock Cove, LLC. NOTE: Prior to the hearing, the PAO had lowered the subject's just value from $11,982,431 to $10,835,177; however, the PET wanted to seek a further reduction by proceeding with this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Publix-anchored shopping center, known as `Hammock Cove', which was built in 2002. The subject's address is 4370 Thomasson Drive, Naples, Florida. This location is at the SE quadrant of US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road/Thomasson Drive. The adjusted building area is 72,265 SF situated upon a site of 510,959 SF (i.e. 11.73 acres). Apparently, the subject was at 93.37% occupancy on the assessment date. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has been no transfers of the subject in the last five years; however, the subject previously sold for $15.1M in December 2006. JUST VALUE CONTESTED & EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$10,835,177, which equates to $149.94/SF of adjusted building area, or $21.21/SF of the total land area. Both parties submitted evidence into the record prior to this hearing. Unless stated otherwise in this ruling, the evidence is considered material, relevant, and credible, unless stated otherwise. Evidence (if any) submitted at the hearing will be identified. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,835,177. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, land sales supportive data/aerials, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, RERC Return Expectations by Property Type (4th Quarter 2018), building permit info (2012 to present) and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $18/SF, or $9,197,258, plus $1,343,839 of impact fees for a total of$10,541,097 (which is 97.3% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 12 commercial land sale indicators (8 residual indicators, plus 4 actual land sales). The 4 actual land sales (7,10, 11 & 12) are given the greatest weight and they are of similar size as the subject. They closed for $14.71/SF, $12.09/SF, $17.18/SF, and $26.49/SF, respectively dating back to 2019-00431 Page 2 of 4 2014. Given the passage of time (i.e. appreciation) and the remaining influence of the 4 other residual land value indicators, the PAO's estimate of$18/SF 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 $5,305,821 & site improvements/paving at $493,288, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$16,340,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. [Note: Even with a land value of$11/SF & all other inputs the same, the PAO's Cost Approach would still support the assessment with room for 15% COS consideration.] In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF. Sales #1 ($337.59/SF) is the resale of#2 ($295.40/SF) and it lacks any anchor (but is adjacent to a Publix-anchored center). All of the 7 remaining sales, 6 have Publix as their grocery anchor, while Sale #9 at $201.25/SF has a Winn-Dixie anchor. While the PAO did not make a specific time/ market conditions adjustment, an argument could be made that it could have been performed, given continued economic improvement over recent years. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 72,265 SF = $14,453,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $15/SF gross for 44,627 SF for the anchor space, $25/SF gross for 27,638 SF of local space, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to the NOI of$857,024 for a value indication of$10,713,000 (before COS consideration). [Note: THE PEI's pro-forma Income Approach is actually $1,314,928 higher than this PAO value, prior to any COS consideration.] The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 33 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Income Approach and a brief analysis of comparable assessments. The PET does not provide a Cost Approach. The PET provides a cover page Summary of Evidence, summary of the appeal, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's aerial, subject's operating statement, `actual' income summary, `pro-forma' Income Approach, partial rent roll (space summary), 2018 income/expense report, 4 Publix-anchored assessment comps [inconclusive analysis to determine if the subject is over-assessed], aerial photos of assessment comps, map of peer shopping centers, and 17 peer shopping center details (Note: These are not sales), RERC First Tier Investment rates in various FL market areas, Form DR-493, 193.011 F.S., and Bulletin PTO 11-01. The PET seeks a value reduction to $10,500,000. It is noted that the subject's just value increased 13.1% (i.e. $1,253,162) from 2018. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject, 6% vacancy, $.25/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 7.64% (6.50%+1.14% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$10,225,071 (after 15% COS deduction). The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach: The PET includes 11 anchored improved sales. Five were in Collier County, 2 in Hillsborough, 1 in Manatee, 1 in Pasco, 1 in Manatee, and 1 in Hillsborough (Valrico). Among these counties & cities noted, the 5 in Collier carry the most significance with the top three of those showing $/SF indicators (after 15% COS) of$144.37, $120.53, and $130.98. PET's Sale #4 (Sears) 2019-00431 Page 3 of 4 was not an arm's length sale & it was subsequently torn down. PET's Sale #5 closed in 2014; thus, it is outdated for meaningful comparison. The PET fails to include PAO's Sale #1 adjacent to the subject that closed in 10/2018 for $337.59/SF. That same property had a prior (recent) sale in 9/2016 (shown as PAO's Sale #2) for $295.40/SF. It is hard to ignore the significance of the adjacent sale to the subject, particularly when the subject's sales price/rentable SF is $174.15, which is 51 .6% of the corresponding figure for the adjacent sale's price of$337.59/SF. However, it is worthy to note that the adjacent sale lacks an anchor and thus consists of smaller tenant areas with the ability to rent for much more than normal big anchors (such as Publix). The subject's anchor constitutes about 76% of the entire subject shopping center. Thus, there is a distortion created by comparing the next door neighbor, given that neighbor is benefitting from the subject's Publix drawing in patrons to its benefit, yet it does not have to suffer the lower rate granted to get that Publix in place. RULING: 1.It is noted the subject last sold for $15.1M in December 2006 & the just value being contested is $10,835,177. A substantial amount of properties have values that have returned to levels at least as high as in the prior boom period when the subject last sold, yet the 2019 just value is more than $4.2M less than the prior sale. 2. The PAO's land value + impact fees total $10,541,097, which is 97.3% of the total just value contested without even considering the substantial building of 72,265 SF built in 2002. It would appear logical the building still contributes to the overall value of the property, as neither party expressed any comments regarding functional obsolescence or external obsolescence. 3.The building permit activity provided in the PAO's evidence indicates $779,240 of permit activity at the subject since June 2018, which helps to support the viability of the building still contributing to the overall property value, given the remaining economic life of building is extended. 4. The PET's 4 assessment comps are not conclusive to prove the subject is (or is not) over-assessed. Three of the 4 comps are a little older, and 2 of the 4 have LTB's lower than the subject's LTB of 7.07. 5. The PAO prepares 3 traditional approaches to value, while the PET provides one. A significant value reduction was already granted by the PAO prior this hearing and it does not appear any further reduction is warranted from the evidence presented. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET has failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00431: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the Property Appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 2019-00431 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-0485 7 VALUE PETITION Rule12D-16.002 F.A.C. Ed; Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00436 Parcel ID 25368002589 Petitioner name SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ. Property 12730 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 10,965,053.00 10,965,053.00 10,965,053.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,033,829.00 10,033,829.00 10,033,829.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,033,829.00 10,033,829.00 10,033,829.00 *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) 171 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/24/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axill ❑ 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 2019-00436 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00436: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The owner (Lowe's Home Center, Inc.) was represented by Petitioner (PET) John Muratides, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Lowe's home center built in 2010. The subject's address is 12730 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. This location is at the SW quadrant of Collier Boulevard & Tamiami Trail East, which is a major intersection. The adjusted building area is 124,919 SF situated upon a site of 578,280 SF (i.e. 13.28 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in June 2009 for $9.5M as vacant land, which equates to $16.43/SF of site area. No other transfers were noted within the past 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,965,053 or $88/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Income Approach, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, big box retail data, CoStar lease comparable data charts/leases, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rate survey information by property type for the 4th Quarter of 2018, confidential 'big box' rental data, impact fee calculations, & building permit information. At the hearing, I did accept (without objection) additional back-up evidence from the PAO related to aerial photos & other details related to PAO land sales that were already in the record. This was not new evidence, just clarification evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. 2019-00436 Page 2 of 5 In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15/SF X 587,280 SF = $8,674,200, plus $2,686,115 of impact fees for a total of$11,360,315 (which is 103.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. The first 5 (plus #7 & #8) are `residual' indicators [given little weight]; whereby, the assessed portion of improvement values are removed from the respective sales prices. The remaining 4 properties are actual land sales. Land Sale #6 ($21.89/SF) is very close to the subject and it was purchased in late 2017 for a new hotel. Land Sale #9 (#12.09/SF), Land Sale #10 ($17.18/SF), and #11 ($26.49/SF) were also given weight, but some upward time consideration to all these 4 land sales, given they closed in 2014-17. It is noted the subject last sold in June 2009 for $9.5M as vacant land, which equates to $16.43/SF of site area; thus, the PAO's conclusion at $15/SF appears to be very well supported. 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 $6,903,016 & site improvements/paving at $1,545,320, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$19,809,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 10 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63-$285/SF. The PAO gives weight to the fee simple sales 1, 6, 7, & 10. The remaining leased fee sales have $/SF indicators influenced by leases. Sale #10 is a former Albertson's grocery store of 62,516 that sold for $80/SF back in 2014. The subject's just value equates to $87.78/SF. The PAO concludes $125/SF X 124,919 SF = $15,615,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,210,465 for a value indication of$16,140,000, or $129/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does have some Collier big box confidential rental data in his 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 very well supported land value + impact fees = 103.6% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 180 pages of the timely evidence via two submittals in Axia. The PET also submitted a corrected 1-page piece of evidence related to his Cost Approach. In addition, the PET provided 2 corrected pages 18 & 19 of his evidence, as related to rental information. The PET considered all 3 approaches to value. The PET provides a cover letter, index, subject's property summary, aerial, subject's property card/sketch, site plan, architectural floor plan, life safety plan, subject's cost analysis [I used the PET's corrected version], CoreLogic cost analysis, [corrected] comparable rent analysis, pro-forma Income Approach, cap rate support [Boulder Group, Calkain, & RealtyRates.com], comparable land sales grid [only 1 land sale is timely for consideration], 3 comparable big box listings in other counties [given zero weight by me], 4 big box sales (in 3 other counties far from Collier County), roster of 17 Lowe's sales (none in Florida), and roster of 20 Target sales (only 2 in Florida), and Lowe's `smaller store format built since 2015 2019-00436 Page 3 of 5 (showing 6 FL stores with an average size of 115,315 SF, as compared to the subject's slightly larger size of 124,919 SF). The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $10,231,954 in the original submittal. The PET corrected that to a revised figure of $9,931,954, but the PET uses the PAO's administrative land value allocation [$4,684,068)]in the assessment, which is incorrect methodology. It has already been noted the prior sale of the subject was for land value of$9.5M, so the PET's use of a figure (roughly) half that amount without support is unjustified. The PET should go to the market for commercial land value support, as was done by the PAO in his Cost Approach. The only land sale provided timely for consideration was a multi-family apartment land sale that has no relevance to the subject. The PET fails to consider impact fees of$2,686,115 and entrepreneurial profit. I give NO WEIGHT to the PET's Cost Approach, as it is not based upon normal appraisal procedures. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $6.50/SF NNN, 5% vacancy, 7%/SF expenses, and a market (i.e. unloaded) cap rate of 7.5%. The PET concludes a value of$8,130,291 (after making a 15% COS deduction). That conclusion is well below the $9.5M land acquisition of the subject 10 years prior to the assessment date. The PET provides 9 rents in different parts of Florida, with only 1 in Collier County for a 1994 building leased to K-Mart. Date of that lease negotiation is unknown. The lease negotiation dates for the majority of leases (if provided) is outdated and not proven to reflect current market conditions. I give very little weight to the PET's Income Approach. The PET includes a Sales Comparison Approach which includes 3 active big box listings (over 75,000 SF) and four closed sales. It is unknown if the listings were actually listings on the assessment date; but regardless, they are located in Pinellas, Taylor, and Orange Counties, respectively. I give zero weight to the PET's 3 listings, as there they are not shown to be reflective of Collier County market conditions. Of the PET's 4 improved sales, none are located in Collier County, but they are generally similar in size to the subject. They were built in '94, '69, '76, & '68. The subject was built in 2010, so the PET's sales are significantly older structures. In fact, 3 of the 4 are 34 to 42 years older than the subject. It is noted the PET uses a normal physical life in his Cost Approach of 40 years; thus, the PET indirectly implies that most of his sales are very close to land value. I give very little weight to the PET's Sales Comparison Approach. RULING: 1.The subject last sold in June 2009 for $9.5M as vacant land, which equates to $16.43/ SF of site area. That prior sale of the land is highly supportive of the PAO's land value + impact fees that total $11,360,315, or 103.6% of the just value being contested. Of course, there still is a very substantial building of 124,919 SF in place adding additional value to the overall property. 2.The PET fails to adequately consider 193.011 (2) related to the H&BU of the subject by failing to properly consider the subject's fee simple land value. 3. The PET fails to adequately consider 193.011 (3) related to the location of the subject by failing to properly consider the subject's location relative to a great deal of the 2019-00436 Page 4 of 5 subject's comparable data. 4. The PET fails to adequately consider 193.011 (5) related to costs related to the property by failing to properly consider appropriate inputs. 5. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET's Cost Approach was not properly prepared & the PET's two other approaches were extremely weak and not well supported by local data. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00436: 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. 2019-00436 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD $ R. 01/17 = VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. V These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00437 Parcel ID 64410040007 Petitioner name SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ. Property 3790 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [✓ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 7,358,017.00 7,358,017.00 6,687,789.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,358,017.00 7,358,017.00 6,687,789.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,358,017.00 7,358,017.00 6,687,789.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/23/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/24/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00437 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00437: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The owner (KME Orchard Naples, LLC) was represented by Petitioner (PET) John Muratides, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a former Orchard hardware store originally built in 2000 but remodeled in 2017. The subject store went `dark' near September 2018, based upon a corporate decision to close these stores nationwide. The subject's address is 3790 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 34,577 SF situated upon a site of 124,015 SF (i.e. 2.85 acres). NOTE: This is a combined hearing for two petitions (TP-437 building/land & TP-438 parking lot/land). Both are part of the same operating entity and have the same ownership. I see no need for two separate folio numbers for this property, so the PET & PAO should agree to combine them into just one folio number in the near future for simplicity & ease of administration. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject sold as a leased fee transaction in June 2017 for $16,857,000. It also sold in July 2016 as a `dark' furniture store for $7,280,000. Subsequently, $3,473,390 in renovations (and a 9,000 SF addition) were spent to make it suitable for the Orchard store's opening. Thus, $10,753,390 was the combined fee simple sale, plus the subsequent renovations into the property prior to the leased fee sale for $16.857M. The contested just value of$9,700,610 is 90.2% of the $10,753,390 figure. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's combined assessment of$9,700,610, or $280.55/SF of adjusted building area. The combined just value for 2019 increased 10.6% ($927,549) from the combined just value of 2018. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Income Approach, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, big box retail data, CoStar lease comparable data charts/leases, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rate survey information by property type for the 4th Quarter of 2018, confidential 'big box' rental data, impact fee calculations, & building permit information. At the hearing, I did accept (without objection) additional back-up evidence from the PAO related to aerial photos & other details related to PAO land sales that were already in the record. This was not new evidence, just clarification evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, 2019-00437 Page 2 of 6 laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $50 X 124,015 SF = $6,200,766, plus $743,505 of impact fees for a total of$6,944,271 (which is 71.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon 19 commercial land sale indicators (mostly) along the Tamiami Trail North corridor. Fourteen of the 19 are `residual' indicators, while 5 are actual land sales. The PAO provided a separate supplement of aerial photo information related to his land sales. 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 $3,603.147 & site improvements/paving at $146,650, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$10,694,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 10 sales. Sales #7 and #10 are the two prior sales of the subject. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63-$547/SF. Significant weight was given to the 7/2016 (#10) sale of the subject for $285/SF. Also, the fee simple sale of a former Toys-R-Us (Sale #1 at $213/SF) is relevant and of similar building size. Sale #9 is also a fee simple sale of similar size for $235/SF. Sale #8 (City Mattress) is very close to the subject and has 12,800 SF that sold for $352/ SF. The PAO concludes $300/SF X 34,577 SF = $10,373,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Overall, the Sales Comparison Approach appears to be very well supported with ample and highly relevant market evidence. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$492,722 for a value indication of$6,570,000, or $190/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does have some Collier big tenant rental data in his evidence on page 45 of his evidence. A Tractor Supply rate of$19.18/SF NNN is noted for a space of 25,042 SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 184 pages of the timely evidence via three submittals in Axia. The PET also submitted a corrected 2-page piece of evidence related to corrections in his Income Approach. The PET used 2 approaches to value but did not use the Cost Approach. The PET provides a cover letter, index, subject's property summary, aerial, subject's property card/sketch, comparable rent analysis, pro-forma Income Approach, cap rate support [Boulder Group, Calkain, & RealtyRates.com], 11 junior box sales [1 is not timely for consideration & none of the remaining 10 are in Collier County. Two of the 10 are in Lee County, but most are significantly older in age that the subject.]. The PET does not 2019-00437 Page 3 of 6 provide a written reconciled value indication form his improved sales. The PET provided a separate information/data package related to numerous retail articles, e-commerce, store closings, Lowe's stores, Orchard Supply Hardware stores, smaller format stores, valuation of big box retail, Florida DOR information, & portions of the DOR training manual. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $20/SF, 5% vacancy, 7% expenses and a applied an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET does a good job of justifying the projected rent. The PET concludes a preliminary value of$8,146,341, then attempts to make a discount for lease-up. However, the subject is a single-user building; thus, it is either 100% occupied, or 100% vacant. The PET submits a `discount for lease- up' exhibit for a $1,297,373, which is invalid. Therefore, only the COS discount is warranted, resulting in an Income Approach indication of$6,924,400, or $200.26/SF. RULING: 1. The PAO's Income Approach is well below his combined just value of the PAO's assessment. 2. After disregarding the lease-up discount, the PET does a good job of presenting an Income Approach; however, the subject has a building size that is a medium size box, but not a large box. In other words, the subject is more marketable to a broader spectrum of the market for owner/users. Thus, the income-generating capacity of such properties is not always paramount, as the `right to occupy and use' this size of space appears to have sufficiently broad appeal among buyers/users. Proof is demonstrated by multiple fee simple purchases in the PAO's evidence, which concluded a value of$10,373,100, less 15% COS = $8,817,000 (rounded). I give strong weight to this figure in this ruling. Granted, that figure is also well below the PAO's combined just value of$9,700,610. 3.The subject last sold (not very long ago) in July 2016 for $7.28M. Subsequently, permits were issued for $3,473,390, resulting in $10,753,390 into this property, less 15% COS = an indicator of$9,140,382 give secondary weight in this ruling. However, it is noted that 'cost does not necessarily equal value', and that some of the improvements were to add features specifically to suit the Orchard future tenant. Some of those features may not command dollar for dollar return in the market, which is also why I do not add entrepreneurial profit to those costs in this situation. Again, $9,140,382 give secondary weight in this ruling because it is not much more than the $8,817,000 figure just mentioned. 4. The PAO's land value may be a little aggressive at $50/SF, probably due to excessive influence by some of the `residual' indictors. There were no `true' land sales along Tamiami Trail close to the subject in the data presented by the PAO; thus, it appears the land value concluded is aggressive. There are many `costs of sale' associated with `residuals' not being deducted by the PAO,just `improvement' assessment values. 5. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET's claim that the assessment is excessive. There is substantial competent evidence in the record that suggests a more appropriate (combined) assessment should be $8,817,000 (rounded). The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be reduced to a combined value of$8,817,000, as allocated on a pro-rata basis shown in the attached exhibit. This means there is a total 2019-00437 Page 4 of 6 reduction of$883,610 below the PAO's $9,700,610 figure. However, there is still a moderate ($43,939) increase above the combined 2018 just value of$8,773,061. See the attached exhibit. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00437: 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. 2019-00437 Page 5 of 6 Folio % of PAO's PAO's Contested SM'S REVISED Ending in Petition # Just Value 2019 Just Value 2019 Just Value 0007 437 75.9% $7,358,017 $6,687,789 0104 438 24.1% $2,342,593 $2,129,211 Total 100.0% $9,700,610 $8,817,000 2019-00437 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00438 Parcel ID 64410040104 Petitioner name SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ. Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [✓ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition I21 Granted your petition [' 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 2,342,593.00 2,342,593.00 2,129,211.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,252,969.00 2,252,969.00 2,129,211.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,252,969.00 2,252,969.00 2,129,211.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/24/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiln ❑ 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 2019-00438 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00438: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The owner (KME Orchard Naples, LLC) was represented by Petitioner (PET) John Muratides, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a former Orchard hardware store originally built in 2000 but remodeled in 2017. The subject store went `dark' near September 2018, based upon a corporate decision to close these stores nationwide. The subject's address is 3790 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 34,577 SF situated upon a site of 124,015 SF (i.e. 2.85 acres). NOTE: This is a combined hearing for two petitions (TP-437 building/land & TP-438 parking lot/land). Both are part of the same operating entity and have the same ownership. I see no need for two separate folio numbers for this property, so the PET & PAO should agree to combine them into just one folio number in the near future for simplicity & ease of administration. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject sold as a leased fee transaction in June 2017 for $16,857,000. It also sold in July 2016 as a `dark' furniture store for $7,280,000. Subsequently, $3,473,390 in renovations (and a 9,000 SF addition) were spent to make it suitable for the Orchard store's opening. Thus, $10,753,390 was the combined fee simple sale, plus the subsequent renovations into the property prior to the leased fee sale for $16.857M. The contested just value of$9,700,610 is 90.2% of the $10,753,390 figure. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's combined assessment of$9,700,610, or $280.55/SF of adjusted building area. The combined just value for 2019 increased 10.6% ($927,549) from the combined just value of 2018. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Income Approach, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, big box retail data, CoStar lease comparable data charts/leases, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC rate survey information by property type for the 4th Quarter of 2018, confidential 'big box' rental data, impact fee calculations, & building permit information. At the hearing, I did accept (without objection) additional back-up evidence from the PAO related to aerial photos & other details related to PAO land sales that were already in the record. This was not new evidence, just clarification evidence. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, 2019-00438 Page 2 of 6 laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $50 X 124,015 SF = $6,200,766, plus $743,505 of impact fees for a total of$6,944,271 (which is 71.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon 19 commercial land sale indicators (mostly) along the Tamiami Trail North corridor. Fourteen of the 19 are `residual' indicators, while 5 are actual land sales. The PAO provided a separate supplement of aerial photo information related to his land sales. 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 $3,603.147 & site improvements/paving at $146,650, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$10,694,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 10 sales. Sales #7 and #10 are the two prior sales of the subject. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $63-$547/SF. Significant weight was given to the 7/2016 (#10) sale of the subject for $285/SF. Also, the fee simple sale of a former Toys-R-Us (Sale #1 at $213/SF) is relevant and of similar building size. Sale #9 is also a fee simple sale of similar size for $235/SF. Sale #8 (City Mattress) is very close to the subject and has 12,800 SF that sold for $352/ SF. The PAO concludes $300/SF X 34,577 SF = $10,373,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Overall, the Sales Comparison Approach appears to be very well supported with ample and highly relevant market evidence. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$492,722 for a value indication of$6,570,000, or $190/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does have some Collier big tenant rental data in his evidence on page 45 of his evidence. A Tractor Supply rate of$19.18/SF NNN is noted for a space of 25,042 SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 184 pages of the timely evidence via three submittals in Axia. The PET also submitted a corrected 2-page piece of evidence related to corrections in his Income Approach. The PET used 2 approaches to value but did not use the Cost Approach. The PET provides a cover letter, index, subject's property summary, aerial, subject's property card/sketch, comparable rent analysis, pro-forma Income Approach, cap rate support [Boulder Group, Calkain, & RealtyRates.com], 11 junior box sales [1 is not timely for consideration & none of the remaining 10 are in Collier County. Two of the 10 are in Lee County, but most are significantly older in age that the subject.]. The PET does not 2019-00438 Page 3 of 6 provide a written reconciled value indication form his improved sales. The PET provided a separate information/data package related to numerous retail articles, e-commerce, store closings, Lowe's stores, Orchard Supply Hardware stores, smaller format stores, valuation of big box retail, Florida DOR information, & portions of the DOR training manual. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $20/SF, 5% vacancy, 7% expenses and a applied an unloaded cap rate of 7.5%. The PET does a good job of justifying the projected rent. The PET concludes a preliminary value of$8,146,341, then attempts to make a discount for lease-up. However, the subject is a single-user building; thus, it is either 100% occupied, or 100% vacant. The PET submits a `discount for lease- up' exhibit for a $1,297,373, which is invalid. Therefore, only the COS discount is warranted, resulting in an Income Approach indication of$6,924,400, or $200.26/SF. RULING: 1. The PAO's Income Approach is well below his combined just value of the PAO's assessment. 2. After disregarding the lease-up discount, the PET does a good job of presenting an Income Approach; however, the subject has a building size that is a medium size box, but not a large box. In other words, the subject is more marketable to a broader spectrum of the market for owner/users. Thus, the income-generating capacity of such properties is not always paramount, as the `right to occupy and use' this size of space appears to have sufficiently broad appeal among buyers/users. Proof is demonstrated by multiple fee simple purchases in the PAO's evidence, which concluded a value of$10,373,100, less 15% COS = $8,817,000 (rounded). I give strong weight to this figure in this ruling. Granted, that figure is also well below the PAO's combined just value of$9,700,610. 3.The subject last sold (not very long ago) in July 2016 for $7.28M. Subsequently, permits were issued for $3,473,390, resulting in $10,753,390 into this property, less 15% COS = an indicator of$9,140,382 give secondary weight in this ruling. However, it is noted that 'cost does not necessarily equal value', and that some of the improvements were to add features specifically to suit the Orchard future tenant. Some of those features may not command dollar for dollar return in the market, which is also why I do not add entrepreneurial profit to those costs in this situation. Again, $9,140,382 give secondary weight in this ruling because it is not much more than the $8,817,000 figure just mentioned. 4. The PAO's land value may be a little aggressive at $50/SF, probably due to excessive influence by some of the `residual' indictors. There were no `true' land sales along Tamiami Trail close to the subject in the data presented by the PAO; thus, it appears the land value concluded is aggressive. There are many `costs of sale' associated with `residuals' not being deducted by the PAO,just `improvement' assessment values. 5. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET's claim that the assessment is excessive. There is substantial competent evidence in the record that suggests a more appropriate (combined) assessment should be $8,817,000 (rounded). The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be reduced to a combined value of$8,817,000, as allocated on a pro-rata basis shown in the attached exhibit. This means there is a total 2019-00438 Page 4 of 6 reduction of$883,610 below the PAO's $9,700,610 figure. However, there is still a moderate ($43,939) increase above the combined 2018 just value of$8,773,061. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00438: 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. 2019-00438 Page 5 of 6 Folio % of PAO's PAO's Contested SM'S REVISED Ending in Petition # Just Value 2019 Just Value 2019 Just Value 0007 437 75.9% $7,358,017 $6,687,789 0104 438 24.1% $2,342,593 $2,129,211 Total 100.0% $9,700,610 $8,817,000 2019-00438 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V s R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIN Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 71 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00439 Parcel ID 25340000208 Petitioner name ANTONIOS NICHOLAS Property 2829 CAPISTRANOWAY The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34105 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition YI Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,174,769.00 1,174,769.00 1,950,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,130,601.00 1,130,601.00 1,130,601.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,080,601.00 1,080,601.00 1,080,601.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00439 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00439: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Liz Molina, Dennis Staruch and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner's Antonio's & Pamela Nicholas. 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$1,174,769. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 2829 Capistrano Way, Naples. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Molina reiterated the 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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. PET provided evidence which included an independent appraisal on the property for $1,950,000. 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, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a 2019-00439 Page 2 of 4 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 54- 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. 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. (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 2019-00439: 2019-00439 Page 3 of 4 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 failed 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 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$1,950,000. 2019-00439 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR085 7 IE VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00448 Parcel ID 00439840006 Petitioner name ANDER SOLUPE Property 11400 WHISTLERS COVEBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 21,831,579.00 21,831,579.00 21,831,579.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 21,831,579.00 21,831,579.00 21,831,579.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 10,697,474.00 10,697,474.00 10,697,474.00 4. Taxable value,* required 11,134,105.00 11,134,105.00 11,134,105.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00448 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00448: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Ryan) was represented by Mr. Imran Thobani & Ms. Katelyn Avello. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a LITCH (Low Income Tax Credit Housing) Apartment Buildings built in 1998 & 1999. The subject's address is 11400 Whistlers Cove Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 264,866 SF situated upon a site of 1,045,440 SF (i.e. 24 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on March 28, 2018 for $28,315,000, apparently as part of a bulk sale. The 2019 assessment equates to 77.10% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$21,831,579 ($90,965/unit or $82.42/SF of adjusted building area). As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of comparable sales, CoStar subject sale summary sheet, income supportive data of multi-family market in Southwest Florida, Tax credit multi-family field survey, lease comp sheets from CoStar, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $9,000,000, plus $2,763,718 of impact fees for a total of$11,763,718 (which is 53.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 12 commercial land sale indicators via a reconciliation of$/SF & $/unit indicators from those sales. The PAO does provide back- up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The 2019-00448 Page 2 of 5 PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $15,589,936 & site improvements/paving at $105,715, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $27,459,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 12 sales, yet only the first 11 closed prior to the assessment date. Sale #12 close in mid-2019 & is a tax credit apartment sale only considered for trending purposes. The PAO gives most weight to the subject's prior sale (i.e. Sale #3 at $106.90/SF). The sales provided are a mixture of LITCH and non-LITCH properties in the market. The PAO concludes $105/SF X 264,866 SF = $27,697,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. It is worthy to note that LITCH Sale #10 has an average unit size of 993 SF & sold for $108.24/SF. LITCH Sale #12 has an average unit size of 1,076 SF & sold for $110.93/SF. Both are reasonably comparable enough to the subject's average unit size of 1,104 SF & assessment of $82.42/SF. I am not giving any significance to the non-LITCH sales presented by the PAO, as their investment characteristics differ. However, their income-earning characteristics should be quite similar, given they are located in Collier County. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $990/unit (gross), vacancy & collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 45.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$1,489,752 for a value indication of$19,749,000, or $263.90/SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 52 pages of the subject's evidence and only included the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's aerial photographs, subject's CoStar summary sheet, Income Approach Analysis, detailed rent roll (as of 1/1/2018, NOT 1/1/2019), comparables summary sheet, comparables property details sheets, market support data sheet, PwC Real Estate Investor Survey, PTO Bulletin 11-01 Form, & Form DR-493. At the hearing, the PET also submitted rebuttal evidence of 2 pages I accepted. One page relates to a Florida Statute describing the special treatment of tax credit housing properties, which states "the actual rental income from rent restricted units in a low income tax credit development shall be recognized by the property appraiser." The second page relates to Starwood Property Trust's portfolio bulk acquisition of 28 properties in Florida. The subject apparently is a part of that acquisition. (Note: The subject's Costar summary indicates there were actually 6 properties sold on March 28, 2018 for $112,169,130; thus, the 6 properties were part of the 28-property package acquired.) The PET requests a just value of$18,353,046. The PET notes the subject's just value went up 47% from 2018; which is a very large increase. However, the sale of the subject during 2018 allows the PAO to reassess the property, based upon the transfer of ownership. The PET argues that (per statute) the Income Approach is the only applicable valuation approach to recognize the subject's income. It is noted that the PET's rent roll should have been as of 1/1/2019, yet the PET provided the 1/1/2018 rent roll that is a year outdated. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $0.8703/SF EGI (thus vacancy is already considered), 47.0% (i.e. $5,553/unit) expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 8.14% (i.e. 7.0% + 1.139% millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$18,463,435, less TPP of$110,389 = $18,353,046, less 15% COS =$15,600,000. However, the PET is 2019-00448 Page 3 of 5 requesting a just value of$18,353,046, as stated on the cover page of the PET's evidence. 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. RULING: 1.PET uses market OAR of 7%, which appears to be higher than surveyed information indicates. PET states it is higher because the rents cannot be adjusted to market. While the rents may not go to `market', they are allowed to increase rents, based upon changes to the local earning power of residents in accordance with recorded rent restrictions. No survey of LITCH OAR's is provided to justify the higher OAR rate used by the PET. 2.The PET uses an outdated rent roll from the beginning of 2018, as compared to the beginning of 2019 (i.e. the assessment date). 3.The PET uses a TPP of$110,389, which is $4,041 lower than the PAO's TPP figure of $114,430. However, this is an insignificant error (if it is an error). No evidence was provided by either party for the actual 2019 TPP assessment. 4.We have a 2018 sale of the subject with the recorded consideration of$28.315M; thus, 85% of that figure is $24,067,750, less TPP of$114,430 = $23,953,000, which is greater than the contested just value of$21,831,579. Granted, the subject was part of a bulk sale and the actual asset allocation method used in the bulk sale is unknown, but (as shown) the PAO does still take an additional deduction for COS beyond the customary 15%. It is logical the owner (Starwood) of the subject would have definitely taken into consideration the subject's income when making a purchase decision; thus, giving strong consideration to the actual purchase price remains consistent with the PET's correct argument founded in law that the `actual rental income' be considered. 5.The PET fails to provide the subject's historical expenses for the true determination of 'net income', yet at the same time argues the `actual rental income' be considered. The terminology in law is vague, yet the `actual rental income' can be determined to mean actual rental income after expenses, or in other words the ACTUAL NOI, which the PET fails to provide (even though requested of all commercial property owners by the PAO every year). 6.The PAO's EGI of$0.8522/SF/month is actually LESS THAN the PET's EGI of $0.8703/SF/month, and the PET's EGI is based upon data outdated by a year. The PAO's own field survey of tax credit properties indicates the subject's average rent at $0.92/ month, while the PAO's survey of all tax credit properties in Collier County was $0.95/ SF/month. The PAO projects 5% V&C, while the PAO's own survey indicates a vacancy 2019-00448 Page 4 of 5 rate of 3.19% and the PET's Pro-Forma Income Approach indicates the subject's vacancy at 1.7% (i.e. 98.3% occupancy). Thus, most indications are that the PAO's Income Approach are more conservative than warranted to the point the PAO's NOI is less than the PET's, but the PET's rents are outdated by a year. 7.The PAO's sales of other LITCH properties were also purchased (based upon their income characteristics), and most sold (dating back to 2015) at price/unit indicators highly supportive of the subject's $90,965/unit assessment. The subject has an average unit size of 1,104 SF, while sale #10 has a smaller average unit size of 993 SF & sold in 2015 for $107,500/unit. The trend of support appears to continue, given the subject sold in 2018 for $117,979/unit & Sale #12 (with a smaller average size of 1,076 SF/unit) sold for $419,318/unit in 2019. While it is acknowledged there can be other financial differences in the actual characteristics of the sales, they do compete in the same county, are of similar vintage and they lend support. After giving primary weight to income characteristics [per law] of the subject and the presentation of all factors, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO's contested just value of$21,831,579, which is well supported by the 2018 purchase price [also based upon the subject's income] of$28,315,000. Many of the PAO's Income Approach inputs appear more conservative than warranted, yet the PAO's just value appears supportable. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00448: 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. 2019-00448 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485' R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00459 Parcel ID 00142440007 Petitioner name ANDER SOLUPE Property 14610 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice 5(10),tF.A.C.iser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 26,278,189.00 26,278,189.00 26,278,189.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 26,054,084.00 26,054,084.00 26,054,084.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 26,054,084.00 26,054,084.00 26,054,084.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00459 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00459: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Ryan) was represented by Mr. Imran Thobani & Ms. Katelyn Avello. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Mercedes auto dealership built in 2016. The subject's address is 14610 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The building improvements consist of 35,636 SF of 2-story showroom/offices, 49,832 SF of service/shop areas, 3,256 SF of car wash, and a 142,196 SF 4-story parking garage. The total building area is 88,724 SF without the garage, or 230,920 with the garage. The total site area is 339,768 SF (i.e. 7.80 acres), which is zoned C-4. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on July 15, 2016 for $9M which was basically a land sale for $26.49/SF. At the time of sale, the parcel was vacant. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$26,278,189. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of comparable sales, income supportive data of retail markets in U.S., Florida, and Southwest Florida, CoStar retail auto dealership sales data, lease comp sheets from CoStar, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, impact fee calculations, and the subject's a permit. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $10,193,040, plus $2,810,218 of impact fees for a total of$13,003,258 (which is 49.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 6 commercial land sale indicators [2 were `residual' indicators]. Land Sale #3 ($26.49/SF) is the prior land sale of the subject back in 2014, 2019-00459 Page 2 of 5 yet there has been subsequent appreciation. The average $/SF indicator of the 6 sales is $30.24; thus, the PAO concludes $30/SF X 339,768 SF of site area = $10,193,000 for the subject's land value estimate. The land value appears to be well supported & the subject does enjoy direct exposure and frontage along Tamiami Trail North. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements $19,523,912 & site improvements/paving at $341,147, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$32,868,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $292.10-$444.28/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #3 ($292.10/SF) with a building size of 20,375 SF & Sale #7 ($410.20/SF) with a building size of 35,349 SF (similar to the subject's comparative size of 88,724 SF without the parking garage being considered). The PAO concludes $350/SF X 88,724 SF = $31,053,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross X 88,724 SF, $5/SF for the parking garage's 142,196 SF, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 15.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5 to NOI of$2,007,009 for a value indication of $26,760,000, or $301.61/SF. The PAO does not give much weight to the Income Approach, given there was not a great deal of rental data associated with this property type. Most major dealerships are owned, not rented. Therefore, there is not a great deal of rental data available for this property type [particularly with a parking structure], the PAO indicates. 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 = $13,003,258, + the 7/2015 permit amount of$19,687,660 = $32,690,918, or +124.4% of the PAO's total assessment. The $32.69M figure compares similarly to the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion of $32.868M, given the subject has not yet suffered all that much physical depreciation over the 3 years since it was built. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 51 pages of the subject's evidence and only included the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photographs, subject's tax roll sketches, subject's building card, subject's CoStar summary sheet, Income Approach Analysis, CoStar comparables summary sheet, Costar comparables photograph sheet, CoStar comparables property details sheets, an active comparable listing for lease, CoStar market support data sheet, CBRE shop rent report, Calkain cap rate analysis, PwC Real Estate Investor Survey, PTO Bulletin 11-01 Form, & Form DR-493. The PET requests a value of$18,126,540. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $30.00/SF for the main showroom space of 35,636 SF, $8.00/SF for the service area of 49,832 SF, 5.0% vacancy, 9.0% expenses ($0.24/SF or 4% for reserves & $0.30/SF or 5% for management), and an unloaded cap rate of 7.0% applied to NOI of$1,268,858. The PET concludes a value of$18,126,540 (before any COS deduction). After a 15% COS, the 2019-00459 Page 3 of 5 PET concludes $15,408,000. The PET does not give any rental credit associated with the subject's 4-story parking garage that has 142,196 SF of space. RULING: For this class of property type as a car dealership with a parking garage, the Income Approach is not particularly ideal. The parking garage compounds the comparability issues with the limited rent comps that exist in the market. Furthermore, the PET did not assign any extra rent to the subject's parking garage of 142,196 SF, while at least the PAO did give it some degree of rent (i.e. $5/SF). The garage allows for cars to be cooler, cleaner, & more secure than being exposed to the elements. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach and the PAO's Cost Approach are far more supportive of the PAO's assessment. In fact, the estimated land value (highly supported by the subject's 2014 acquisition), plus impact fees, plus the depreciated improvement costs (highly supported by the actual permit costs) result in the PAO's Cost Approach estimate of $32,868,000. This appears far more reasonable than the PET's request for a value of $18,126,540, which is just 69% of the PAO's just value. Another way to look at it is that the PET's is requesting a value of$18,126,540, which is LESS THAN the subject's actual $19,678,660 permit fee alone (without consideration for the land value or the impact fees). Neither party to the hearing provided any evidence that the [almost new] improvements do not reflect the H&BU of the site; thus, it would appear logical that another auto dealership operation would be interested in the subject, should it become available for purchase. This class of large auto dealership type of property is more commonly owned and not leased. Given it is almost new, depreciation is limited, historical permit costs are known, good support exists for land value [including the subject's site acquisition in 2014], and given ample dealership sales exist, I give stronger weight to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach and Cost Approach. Based upon the data presented, the PAO's assessment appears better supported & is more logical for this (almost) new building with recent construction costs available and a well- supported land value conclusion. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00459: 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 2019-00459 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00459 Page 5 of 5 R85 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. s Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00471 Parcel ID 70720400101 Petitioner name ANDER SOLUPE Property 3147 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary II Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 8,916,030.00 8,916,030.00 8,916,030.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,370,269.00 8,370,269.00 8,370,269.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,370,269.00 8,370,269.00 8,370,269.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00471 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00471: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Ryan) was represented by Mr. Imran Thobani & Ms. Katelyn Avello. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is the Naples Porsche auto dealership built in 2017. The subject's address is 3147 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The site area is 93,820 SF (i.e. 2.15 acres). There is a 2-story showroom/office structure with 14,390 SF, a 13,923 SF auto repair center, a 3,456 SF car wash, and a 27,618 SF parking garage. In the approaches, the PAO uses slightly different building square footage figures (excluding the parking garage). The PAO uses 32,606 SF for his Sales Comparison Approach, 31,538 for his Income Approach, and 31,769 SF in his Cost Approach, and then adds the parking garage of 27,618 SF also within his Cost Approach. [Note: The PET only uses a lower figure of 28,313 in his Income Approach, which is the only approached used by the PET.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on December 27, 2016 for $2.3M which was basically a land sale. At the time of sale, there was an older building on it which was immediately torn down right after the purchase. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$8,916,030 or $273.45/SF [based on 32,606 SF of non-parking garage building area used by the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach]. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of comparable sales, income supportive data of retail markets in U.S., Florida, and Southwest Florida, CoStar retail auto dealership sales data, 2019-00471 Page 2 of 5 lease comp sheets from CoStar, Overall Cap Rate Analysis, impact fees sheet, and the subject's 1/2017 building permit job value estimate of$8,780,535. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $2,345,490, plus $745,693 of impact fees for a total of$3,091,183 (which is 34.7% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 commercial land sale indicators. Land sale #9 was the prior sale of the subject in late 2016 (without the extra demolition costs of the prior structure). Overall, the land value appears very well supported by the 10 sales, all of which are in fairly close proximity 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 $8,083,441 & site improvements/paving at $72,007, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$11,247,000 to support the subject's assessment. The PAO could have also added entrepreneurial profit and some minor soft costs (such as taxes during construction) to have further increased the total cost figure. It is noted that the permit fees were almost $8.8M, which is highly supportive of the PAO's depreciated value of the building (i.e. after 2 years of depreciation). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. [Note: Sale #8 closed mid-2019 & is only considered for trending because it is not timely for consideration.] The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $273.45-$444.28/SF, and some of those sales are in Lee County. The PAO gives most weight to Sale #3 ($292.10/ SF) with a building size of 20,375 SF & Sale #7 ($410.20/SF) with a building size of 35,349 SF (similar to the subject's size). The PAO concludes $360/SF X 32,606 SF = $11,738,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. It is worthy to note that the subject's building size & FAR (in the sales chart) were calculated without the inclusion of the subject's parking garage. Thus, there are distortions to the `land-to-building' (actually the FAR) ratios provided. It is also worthy to note that parking garages are expensive and are more and more frequently being constructed with car dealerships. Parking garages keep cars cooler, cleaner, and more secure. The PAO's use of a $360/SF indicator applied to the base building (i.e. without the parking garage) appears reasonable, given it does not appear any of the sale comps have parking garages. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross X 31,538 SF, $5/SF for the parking garage's 28,455 SF, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 15.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$624,226 for a value indication of $8,323,000, or $263.90/SF. The PAO does not give much weight to the Income Approach, given there was not a great deal of rental data associated with this property type. Most major dealerships are owned, not rented. Therefore, there is not a great deal of rental data available for this property type [particularly with a parking structure], the PAO indicates. 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 + permit amount = $11,871,728, or +133% of the PAO's total assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 48 pages of the subject's evidence and only included the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence 2019-00471 Page 3 of 5 Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's permit history, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photographs, subject's tax roll sketches, subject's building card, subject's CoStar summary sheet, Income Approach Analysis, CoStar comparables summary sheet, Costar comparables photograph sheet, CoStar comparables property details sheets, an active comparable listing for lease, CoStar market support data sheet, CBRE shop rent report, Calkain cap rate analysis, PwC Real Estate Investor Survey, PTO Bulletin 11-01 Form, & Form DR-493. The PET seeks a value reduction to $5,996,221. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $26.00/SF applied to the showroom's 14,390 SF of rentable area, $8/SF applied to the service area's 13,923 SF, no rent applied to the parking garage, 5.0% vacancy, 9.0% expenses, ($0.39 for 5% management +$0.31/SF for 4% reserves), and an unloaded cap rate of 7.0%. The PET concludes a value of$5,996,221 (before any COS deduction), then $5,097,000 after 15% COS. The PET argues that some dealership features and amenities are manufacturer-dictated, such that all of those costs are not fully recovered in an actual `value in exchange'. RULING: For this class of property type as a car dealership with a parking garage, the Income Approach is not particularly ideal. The parking garage compounds the comparability issues with the limited rent comps that exist in the market. Furthermore, the PET did not assign any extra rent to the subject's parking garage of 28,455 SF, while at least the PAO did give it some degree of rent (i.e. $5/SF). The garage allows for cars to be cooler, cleaner, & more secure than being exposed to the elements. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach and the PAO's Cost Approach are far more supportive of the PAO's assessment. In fact, the estimated land value (highly supported by the subject's 2016 acquisition), plus impact fees, plus the depreciated improvement costs (highly supported by the actual permit costs) result in the PAO's Cost Approach estimate of $11,247,000. This appears far more reasonable than the PET's request for a value of $5,996,221, which is just 67% of the PAO's just value. Another way to look at it is that if the PET's request for $6M (rounded) is considered, the PAO provides very good support for land value + impact fees of$3,091,193. That leaves only $2,908,807 for the (almost new) building, or just 33.1% of the permit for construction. This does not make sense. It does appear the building has substantial value, even if a minor amount may be lost to car manufacturer design considerations. The PAO notes that the service area is 100% air conditioned and not just `garage' space. Based upon the data presented, the PAO's assessment appears better supported & is more logical for this (almost) new building with recent construction costs available and a well-supported land value conclusion. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00471: 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, 2019-00471 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00471 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00476 Parcel ID 00240440006 Petitioner name ANDER SOLUPE Property 5327 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34109 other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 15,824,288.00 15,824,288.00 15,824,288.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,239,733.00 12,239,733.00 12,239,733.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required � 12,239,733.00 12,239,733.00 12,239,733.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiql ❑ 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 2019-00476 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00476: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Ryan) was represented by Mr. Imran Thobani & Ms. Katelyn Avello. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as the "Bed Bath & Beyond Shopping Plaza" built in 1987. The subject's address is 5327 Airport Road North, Naples, Florida. It is adjacent to the intersection of Pine Ridge Road & Airport Road North, which (per the PAO) is one of the busiest intersections in Collier County. The building area is 111,397 SF situated upon a site of 583,520 SF (i.e. 13.40 acres). There appears to be 5 outparcels in front of the subject that include a bank & a McDonald's. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the past 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$15,824,288 or $142.05/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of comparable sales, income supportive data of shopping centers in U.S., Florida, and Southwest Florida, CoStar retail lease comps, CoStar retail data, PwC Cap Rate Analysis, and Impact Fee Calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $11,670,400, plus $1,916,884 of impact fees for a total of$13,587,284 (which is 85.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land indicators, with #1 & 9 [both residual indicators] close to the subject. In fact, land indicators #1 through #9 are all `residual' indicators from shopping centers, while #10 ($17.18/SF for an auto dealership) and #11 ($26.49/SF for a Mercedes dealership) are actual vacant site sales. The PAO estimates a land value of$20/SF, while the mean of the indicators is $23.66/SF. 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 ($7,190,073) & site improvements/paving at $840,500, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $21,618,000 to support the subject's assessment of$15,824,288. Because of the subject's age of 32 years, the PAO does not give the Cost Approach much weight; however, the PAO does consider the land + impact fees to be significant, given they are 85.9% of the total just value. The PAO estimates the subject's effective age at 25 years in his Marshall Valuation inputs. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales. Almost all the 2019-00476 Page 2 of 5 PAO's sales have a grocery store anchor (Publix in most cases). The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$337.59/SF, with an average [mean] of$232.28/SF, and median of$231/SF. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 111,397 SF = $22,279,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Based upon the overall location of the subject as compared to the sale comps, this approach appears to provide good support to the assessment. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of $1,754,503 for a value indication of$21,931,000, or $196.87/SF. The loaded 8.0% OAR implies a 6.991% market OAR, given the 1.089% millage rate. The market Korpacz national strip center OAR for the 4th quarter of 2018 was 6.7%. The actual derivation of the PAO's blended $25/SF gross rate is less clear, given the PAO does not present a breakdown of rental rates by tenant category sizes (as performed by the PET). The PAO does provide a variety of lease comps via long rosters within his evidence package, but it is not specifically clear which rents are the most comparable or competitive with the subject. The PET's Costar subject summary sheet for the subject does indicate a submarket 2 to 4 star rating rent of$24.93/SF, but that likely relates to smaller spaces, not anchor spaces. The PAO was never provided with the (twice) requested income/ expense information from the subject. 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 = 85.9% of the PAO's total assessment & it does appear logical that the vertical improvements do contribute to the overall property value. The 32-year old building appears to be in reasonably good condition from the photographs. Interestingly, the entire just value equates to $27.12/SF of the subject's entire site area. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 53 pages of the subject's evidence and only included the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's aerial photographs, subject's CoStar summary sheet, Income Approach Analysis, CoStar's market lease analysis, lease comp details, CoStar market retail market support, CoStar comparables summary sheet, CoStar comparables property details sheets, CoStar market support data sheet, CBRE Cap Rate Analysis, CBRE shopping center rent report, PwC Real Estate Investor Survey & Form DR-493. I also accepted 4 pages of rebuttal evidence from the PET related to Costar sheets for the PAO's Improved Sales #1 & #2. The PET seeks a value reduction to $12,330,000 [which happens to be less than the PAO's land value + impact fees of $13,587,284]. The PET notes that there was a substantial increase in the subject's assessment from 2018 to 2019. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon a weighted average PGI of$18.21/SF, 8.0% vacancy, 32.0% expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 9.339%. The PET's evidence does note that the current occupancy is 100% [as is also confirmed by Costar], yet the PET still projects 8% vacancy. The PET concludes a value of $12,330,000 (after making a 15% COS deduction). The PET breaks down the revenue 2019-00476 Page 3 of 5 into space size groupings for the anchor (44,777 SF @ $15/SF gross), sub-anchor space of 10,024 SF @ $20/SF gross, and local space (56,215 SF @ $23/SF gross). The resulting weighted average revenue (PGI) is $18.21/SF, as compared to the PAO's estimate of$25/SF (gross). The PET did not provide a rent roll or any historical operating information, as was requested twice during the year by the PAO to all commercial property owners. RULING: The PAO's Cost & Sales Comparison Approaches appear to be supportive of the assessment, particularly since the land value + impact fees equate to 85.9% of the total assessment. The building is 100% occupied and appears to have ample remaining economic life, so the improvements do appear to contribute significantly to value. The PAO's land value at $20/SF does appear reasonable given the 2 actual land sales provided. The `residual' land value indicators have more variability, but still do suggest support for $20/SF. The PAO's Income Approach could have provided more detailed breakdowns of tenant space size categories to support the $25/SF gross (weighted average) figure, but the PET's rental information (charts/photos, etc.) helps to show reasonableness for the PAO's rent projection. The PAO's vacancy projection at 10% appears excessive for a center at 100% occupancy, and stated by the PAO to be at one of the busiest intersections in Collier County. As for the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, the subject is assessed at $142.05/SF (based upon 111,397 SF). The PAO provides 9 improved shopping center sales that range in size from 59,244-139,335 SF. Only 1 of the 9 sales has a $/SF of building indicator less than the subject's assessment, while the average of all 9 is $232.28/SF and the PAO concludes $200/SF from the sales, which appears reasonable to perhaps slightly aggressive for the lack of a grocery anchor at the subject. However, PAO's sales #1 @ $339/SF & #2 @ $295.40/SF (the same property selling twice) is a 2-story building that also lacks a grocery anchor [but is near one]. The PET only provides an Income Approach, but the PET's presentation of rent comparables is more descriptive with better data and pictures. However, my review of that rental data suggests that the PAO's rent project is likely reasonable. In fact, the PET shows a Bed, Bath & Beyond rent comp in Estero with a rent of$14.07/SF NNN, plus, CAM fees. The PET's roster of `asking leases' and supporting documentation tends to suggest the PET's projected rents are within reason. The PET's projected base cap rate (i.e. before loading) of 8.25% also appears excessive for the subject, based upon my review of the more reputable & applicable cap rate survey data. The subject's owner has had ample opportunities to provide rent roll data and historical income/expense data, as requested every year by the PAO to assist in the assessment process. However, the subject's owner has declined to share that data that would be helpful. Regardless, the PAO does assess 'at market' and not on a leased fee basis. In conclusion & to put things into perspective, the total just value equates to $27.12/SF of land, while the combined land value + impact fees (which run with the land) equate to $23.29/SF of land. Based upon the photographs provided, 100% occupancy, and lack of any testimony to the contrary, the buildings do appear to add at least $3.83/SF of the land area in support of the PAO's assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is 2019-00476 Page 4 of 5 recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00476: 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. 2019-00476 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00479 Parcel ID 00153360008 Petitioner name ANDER SOLUPE Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 1 SUNRISE BLVD � taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 16,915,850.00 16,915,850.00 16,915,850.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,647,716.00 9,647,716.00 9,647,716.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,647,716.00 9,647,716.00 9,647,716.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ 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 2019-00479 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00479: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Ryan) was represented by Mr. Imran Thobani & Ms. Katelyn Avello. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an older mobile home park in the process of conversion into a manufactured housing park. It was originally built in 1970. The subject is operated as a 55+ community. The subject's address is 1 Sunrise Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The average lot size is 6,279 SF. The total park has an area of 2,254,230 SF (i.e. 51.75 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on June 1, 2016 for $27,000,000, or $75,209/lot. The 2019 assessment equates to 62.7% of that prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$16,915,850, or $47,000/lot. As with all VAB 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 a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject's Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, CoStar comparable summary sheet, income supportive data sheet, and impact fee calculations. The PAO also provided an article & site plan regarding the subject from 2016 discussing its acquisition by Zeman Homes. The Costar write-up of that prior sale of the subject is also provided. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $16,818,750 ($325,000/acre), plus $4,364,034 of impact fees for a total of$21,182,784 (which is 125.2% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 6 land sale (or `residual') indicators, with 3 being the prior sale of the subject. Given the sale dates, Land Residual Sale #2 ($321,043/acre) appears to be the best non-subject sale indicator because it sold in December 2018 and it is extremely similar in site area. Land Residual Sale #4 is an 2019-00479 Page 2 of 5 older sale from April 2013 for $212,117/acre, but it is outdated, as are the other non- subject sales. Sale #1 is not worthy of consideration at all, give it is an extremely small site of just 1.69 acres. 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 $50,143 & site improvements/pool/storage building/paving at $41,870, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$21,275,000 to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 6 sales. However, the Sales Comparison Approach is meaningless to this type of property. The PAO derives $/ SF of building indicators, but the buildings (in all cases) are small in comparison to the land area. I give zero weight to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects lot rent at $600/month, or $7,200/year, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 55.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to NOI of$1,046,844 for a value indication of$12,766,000, or $35,561/lot. Via testimony, the PAO discusses the owner's plans to build a new clubhouse and spend some funds on upgrades to the park. Basically, the subject is in a situation where they have to phase out & remove older trailers and get new buyers to purchase new manufactured homes on those sites. This process takes time. From the photographs provided, it appears there is a combination of trailers (on wheels), mobile homes, and a limited number of the new manufactured housing units in place. The interior streets and utilities within the development are private, not publicly owned. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 47 pages of the subject's evidence that included the Income Approach & a limited Sales Comparison Approach. Some comparable assessments are also discussed. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's permit history, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photograph, Income Approach Analysis, Rent Roll Analysis (as of 1/1/2019), Cap Rate Support, Comparable Sales Analysis, CoStar comparables summary sheet with photographs, active comparable listing, Costar comparables photograph sheet, CoStar comparables property details sheets, an active comparable listing, PTO Bulletin 11-01 Form, Form DR-493 & assessment comparables. The PET argues that the motivation of the subject's owner was in the future sales revenues of manufactured homes, as well as the financing aspects of those sales. The PET notes that the owner can also rent units, as well. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $617.70/month for PGI of$2,661,048, 10.0% vacancy, 52.0% expenses ($3,469/lot), and a loaded cap rate of 8.09% (7.00% + 1.089%) applied to an NOI of$1,149,573 resulting in a value indication of 14,211,538, less 150% COS = $12,080,000, or $33,649/lot. The PET includes a brief Comparable Sales from Costar for 11 sales located in various parts of the state. All are older mobile home types of parks of/Listing analysis. The sale details are somewhat limited, as the land areas associated with each sale are not provided. However, the price, sale date, number of units/lots, year built, and building sizes are provided for the vast majority of the sales, none of which are located in Collier, Lee, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach Counties. All of the sales are located in 2019-00479 Page 3 of 5 (arguably) inferior counties to Collier. The subject was built in 1970, & has an assessment of$47,119/lot. The following 3 sales are generally considered inferior properties, but their corresponding sales price/lot indicators tend to suggest the subject's assessment is within reason, given the subject is in Collier County. Sale #3 [built in '71] is in Pinellas County closed in October 2018 & has 346 lots that closed for $40,462/lot. It has a relatively moderate amenity package of 6,566 SF. Sale #6 [built in '75] is also in Pinellas County & closed in March 2017 & has 88 lots that closed for $45,373/lot. It has a very small building area of 1,690 SF. Sale #7 [built in '49] is in Lake County and closed in December 2018 for $45,455 per lot with 132 lots. It has a much larger building area that may include many old trailers, but the information provided does not specify. The PET fails to analyze the 11 sales they provide in evidence, yet it can be observed that the subject's just value assessment/lot is not really that unreasonable by comparison with some of those other (arguably inferior) sales. The subject's average lot size is 6,279 SF/unit, which is reasonably large. The lots sizes of the PET's 11 sales described are unknown from the PET's Costar information provided. The PET also provides two "raw" land sales that closed during 2018. One for $38,206/lot in a proposed 340-unit development, and another 56-unit raw site at $14,286/lot. The PET fails to adequately address any infrastructure cost add-on value associated with the fact that the subject already has infrastructure & amenities in place. Furthermore, the subject is a `stabilized' existing property; whereas, the two raw sales are not similar for meaningful comparison without a great deal more evidence. I give no particular significance to the PET's 2 raw land sales other than to say the $38,206 "raw lot" indicator from the first sale exceeds the PET's $33,649/lot indicator [after COS] from the PET's Income Approach for a fully finished' lot (i.e. with infrastructure). This makes no sense & undermines the credibility of the PET's request for relief. The PET includes an analysis of two assessment comparables. The first assessment comp is directly north of the subject and has a just value of$33,897/lot; however, the PAO staff indicates there are still some hurricane damage-related issues that impact assessments and cause distortions. The PET's second assessment comp is due south of the subject for $49,748/lot (as compared to the subject's assessment of$47,119/lot. The interesting thing about this 2nd assessment comp is the average lot size is 2,984 SF, while the subject has MORE THAN TWICE THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE at 6,279 SF/lot. Thus, if anything, the PET's 2nd assessment comp (next door to the south of the subject) is highly supportive of the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. RULING: 1.It does appear the owner's prior purchase price of$27M in June 2016 was an aggressive price to pay. 2. The PET failed to provide any historical expense evidence to support the high expense ratio of 52% [without taxes]. The expenses appear too high, given LOTS are being rented, not improved housing units that also have to be maintained. The PAO projects expenses of$106,623/month, while the PET projects a similar level at $103,781/month, and both of these figures are without property taxes. These figures appear grossly excessive. The PAO also appears to duplicate this same problem by also failing to 2019-00479 Page 4 of 5 support expenses of a similar magnitude as the PET without any support. Therefore, I give both Income Approaches very little weight, as they appear unreasonable and lack any form of breakdown for analysis. 3.The PET's 2nd assessment comp is highly supportive of the assessment on a per lot basis, given the subject lots are more than twice the size. 4.Three of the 11 inferior sales around the state provided in PET's evidence also appear to be generally supportive of the subject's assessment/lot. 5.The June 2016 purchase price of the subject appears to support the assessment, even though the 2019 assessment is only 62.7% of that price. 6.The PAO's Land Sale #2 for 56.13 acres/354 lots ($50,904/lot or $321,043/acre) closed in December 2017. It appears to be the best land sale & it is located in Collier County and is sufficiently recent. The PAO's Cost Approach uses a land value very close to this sale price/acre and the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion was $21,275,000. The PAO should have also included the costs to install streets & infrastructure which easily could have added significant extra cost. Regardless, the PAO's Cost Approach is highly supportive of the subject's assessment. The land value conclusion of$16.82M + impact fees of$4.36M are sufficient to justify the subject's total just value of$16.916M. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00479: 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. 2019-00479 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. IA These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00492 Parcel ID 66432440007 Petitioner name EVANS, STEVEN Property 6604 SOUTHFORK The petitioner is: 17I taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 12] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,021,598.00 1,007,156.00 1,007,156.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 983,720.00 968,397.00 968,397.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 983,720.00 968,397.00 968,397.00 *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 12/06/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00492 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00492: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Liz Molina, Dennis Staruch, and Jeep Quinby and Petitioner's representative's Mr. and Mrs. Evans. The trim value of$1,021,598.00 has been changed and the PAO confirmed just value of $1,007,156. 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 54- 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 PET's did not previously present evidence prior to the hearing as required by statue, Petitioner explained that they were new to the county and that they wanted their evidence heard. The PAO stated that they would make an appointment for the petitioner to come to their office and discuss the evidence. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00492: 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, 2019-00492 Page 2 of 3 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. The petition is denied. 2019-00492 Page 3 of 3 Fdai DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00501 Parcel ID 36127000009 Petitioner name 55THTER RENTAL LLC Property 1828 48THSTSW The petitioner is: 71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34116 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition I1 Granted your petition ❑ 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 110,903.00 110,903.00 80,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 34,375.00 34,375.00 34,375.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 34,375.00 34,375.00 34,375.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00501 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00501: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 1828 48th Street SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The site consists of 11,250 SF (i.e. 0.26 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6 & has a residential view. There is no water or sewer available. The site has been cleared. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$110,903, or $9.86/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, ground photograph, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 6 residual land sale indicators. Comp #1 is an actual lot sale, #2 is a lot listing, and #3 through #6 are `residual' land indicators derived from improved sales. The PAO seeks an adjusted `price per front foot' indicator from the comparable data. The PAO concludes $2,000/FF X 90FF X 0.93 X 1.00 = $167,400 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET indicates the subject is suitable for a duplex. The PET submitted a land sales grid with five land sales that sold in 2018. The PET seeks a value reduction to $80,000. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #1 has dissimilar C-2 zoning & was a probate sale; thus, it is given no weight. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #2 was also part of the same probate sale & it is given very little weight. PET's sales #3 (zoned 2019-00501 Page 2 of 4 RSF-3), #4 (probate sale), & #5 (zoned RMF-6) all closed for $80,000 each during 2018. Of these last 3 sales, greater weight is given to #5, which was due to a divorce, but at least it had 304 days of exposure to the market. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: 1. I give little weight to the PAO's `residuals', as I question whether all applicable deductions have been made and also because they have different buyer motivations than lot buyers. All 4 residuals were existing properties with income-producing buildings, while the subject is a lot. Also, the 4 `residuals' result in the 4 highest `adjusted price per front foot' indicators that were sought by the PAO. Basically, all 4 residuals are approximately double the one land sale indicator provided, which should have been an indication to the PAO that something was wrong with their analysis. Using the PAO's logic and reasoning, the PAO's true land sale (i.e. #1) indicates a value of$1,000/FF X $90FF X 0.93 X 1 .00 = $83,700 (before any COS consideration). 2. In the PAO's analysis, there is no adjustment to the vacant lot listing (#2) to account for the likely lower price upon closing after negotiations. Also, it may have been more reasonable to at least consider the asking price per unit allowed, rather than strictly considering the value per front foot. Therefore, I give less weight to PAO's listing #2. 3.The zoning of each PAO comparable is not provided. Mr. Staruch's testimony was also confusing, as he does not specify which zoning classification went with each comparable. The zoning of each comparable should have been provided within the PAO's grid, and very likely the PAO should have at least considered $/SF and $/unit indicators to seek consistency in that data. 4. From the one good land sale provided by the PAO and the one good land sale provided by the PET, it appears the PET's request for $80K is within reason, but I will not make any further deduction for COS, because some of the data appears to have some degree of distressed circumstances. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised just value is lowered to $80,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00501: 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 2019-00501 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00501 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V e R. 01/17 = VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00502 Parcel ID 35647480003 Petitioner name 55TH TER RENTAL, LLC Property 0 taxpayer of record NAPLES, GOLDEN GATE PKWY The petitioner is: taxpayer's agent address NAPFL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition r0 Granted your petition ❑ 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 126,108.00 126,108.00 85,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 30,645.00 30,645.00 30,645.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 30,645.00 30,645.00 30,645.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00502 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00502: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 4271 Golden Gate Parkway, Golden Gate City, Florida. It backs to a busy street and has dual street frontage. The site consists of 15,000 SF (i.e. 0.34 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6 & has a residential view. The site is mostly cleared. There is water connection access, but not sewer service. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$126,108, or $8.41/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, ground photograph, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 `residual' land sale indicators. The PAO concludes $2,390/FF X 120 FF X 0.93 X 1 .00 = $266,700 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with 3 sales that sold in 2018. The PET seeks a value reduction to $69,750 (same as 2018). The PAO indicates PET's Sale #1 has dissimilar C-2 zoning & was a probate sale; thus, it is given no weight. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #2 was also part of a probate sale, but at least it had 239 days on the market & closed for $80,000. PET's sale #3 closed for $85,000 during 2018. 2019-00502 Page 2 of 4 RULING: 1. I give little weight to the PAO's `residuals', as I question whether all applicable deductions have been made and also because they have different buyer motivations than lot buyers. All 4 residuals were existing properties with income-producing buildings, while the subject is a lot. It is unknown exactly what deductions the PAO used, but it is questionable if deductions were made for commissions, septic systems, wells, etc. 2. The zoning of each PAO comparable is not provided. The zoning of each comparable should have been provided within the PAO's grid, and very likely the PAO should have at least considered $/SF and $/unit indicators to seek consistency in that data. Mr. Staruch brought up the topic of an overlay district (and map) that is intended for urban renewal; however, that map was not presented prior to the hearing. Also, the PAO does not relate or quantify how the overlay district impacts the subject's value (or any of the comparables presented). 3. The PET did provide a sale (#3) that closed in 2018 for $85,000 & it also has 120 FF like the subject, so it is given significance. This petition (#502 zoned RMF-6) has a larger lot than the subject of#501 (also zoned RMF-6), with a corrected just value of $80,000). This petition 502 should be a greater in value than 501, given 502 is larger. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised just value is lowered to $85,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00502: 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 2019-00502 Page 3 of 4 revised just value. 2019-00502 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. n These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00503 Parcel ID 62256440009 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FQj Property 5226 MITCHELLST The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34113 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 11 Granted your petition ❑ 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 71,280.00 71,280.00 55,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 71,280.00 71,280.00 55,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 71,280.00 71,280.00 55,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ 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 2019-00503 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00503: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing's testimony & evidence is similar to TP-503, 504, 509, 510, & 511. Each subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Naples Manor. This one petition's address is 5226 Mitchell Street, Naples, Florida. It is a wooded interior site [60' x 144' = 8,700 SF, or 0.20 acres]. The subject is zoned RSF-4 & it has a residential view. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in May 2018 for $55,000. The contested just value equates to 129.6% of this recent purchase price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$71,280, or $8.19/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a grid & map of 6 residual land value indicators from the 6 homestead properties, each with 60 front feet (like the subject). These are not actual land sales; thus, the PAO deducts the depreciated improvement assessed value portion from each respective sales price of the respective improved home sale to get a `residual' amount remaining for each lot. The PAO also gives consideration to lot depth factors. The PAO concludes $2,225/front foot, or $99,125 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO indicates he did not use actual lot sales from the immediate area because they were all foreclosure sales, bank sales, (and similar disqualified sales). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET seeks a value reduction to $40,600. The 2019-00503 Page 2 of 4 subject's recent deed for its 2018 sale is provided. The PET states the subject was in MLS & the PET indicates their offer was the only one. The PET shows the subject's asking price in MLS for $59,000, and it went to contract within 18 days. The PET provides a separate roster of 3 MLS sales (#3 is the subject) with two other sales on Texas Avenue that sold for $30,000 each during 2018. The PET fails to provide a map plotting the location of his sales. The PET also fails to provide the actual listing brochures from the sales used to determine any other circumstances that may be relevant to this hearing. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing, mainly because we have a timely purchase price of the subject. The PAO only used a `residual' technique that is based upon improved home sales. While that is one of several recognized techniques, it does not appear the PAO deducted all relevant costs (such as impact fees, commissions, site work, etc.) from those sales. The PAO also fails to provide the year of construction related to any of his residuals to be able to determine if the deducted depreciation is reasonable. The PAO should be very careful that proper techniques are employed with all the appropriate deductions made to produce credible results. It is also significant that the PAO made the statement that he did not include any lot sales, because all the lot sales that existed in the immediate area were distressed. This tends to imply that `typical' sales ARE distressed sales to the extent that that distressed sales make this market (at least when it comes to lots). What we do have here is a recent sale of the subject in a market that (very likely) is in distress. Furthermore, this appears to be a "two-tiered market". There are buyers of completed homes, as well as buyers of lots (with different motivations and constraints). Therefore, I do give consideration to the $55,000 purchase price in 2018 as the appropriate 'just value', but I do not consider any additional COS deduction warranted in this case because there is apparent distress in the lot sales market. Relief is granted to $55,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00503: 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 2019-00503 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. 2019-00503 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V 1 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00504 Parcel ID 62253720007 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FCitj Property 5233 JENNINGSST The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34113 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 92,160.00 92,160.00 55,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 92,160.00 92,160.00 55,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 92,160.00 92,160.00 55,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00504 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00504: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing's testimony & evidence is similar to TP-503, 504, 509, 510, & 511. Each subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Naples Manor. This one petition's address is 5233 Jennings Street, Naples, Florida. It is a partially wooded site which consists of 8,100 SF (i.e. 0. 17 acres). The subject is zoned RSF-4 & it has a residential view. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in July 2018 for $55,000. The contested just value eq/uates to 167.6% of this recent purchase price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$92,160, or $11.38/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a grid & map of 6 residual land value indicators from the 6 homestead properties, each with 60 front feet (like the subject). These are not actual land sales; thus, the PAO deducts the depreciated improvement assessed value portion from each respective sales price of the respective improved home sale to get a `residual' amount remaining for each lot. The PAO also gives consideration to lot depth factors. The PAO concludes $2,225/front foot, or $128,200 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO indicates he did not use actual lot sales from the immediate area because they were all foreclosure sales, bank sales, (and similar disqualified sales). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The subject's recent deed for its 2018 sale is provided. 2019-00504 Page 2 of 4 The PET states the subject was in MLS with an asking price of$59,000, and it went to contract within 18 days. The PET provides a separate roster of 3 MLS sales (#3 is the subject) with two other sales on Texas Avenue that sold for $30,000 each during 2018. The PET fails to provide a map plotting the location of his sales. The PET also fails to provide the actual listing brochures from the sales used to determine any other circumstances that may be relevant to this hearing. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing, mainly because we have a timely purchase price of the subject. The PAO only used a `residual' technique that is based upon improved home sales. While that is one of several recognized techniques, it does not appear the PAO deducted all relevant costs (such as impact fees, commissions, site work, etc.) from those sales. The PAO also fails to provide the year of construction related to any of his residuals to be able to determine if the deducted depreciation is reasonable. The PAO should be very careful that proper techniques are employed with all the appropriate deductions made to produce credible results. It is also significant that the PAO made the statement that he did not include any lot sales, because all the lot sales that existed in the immediate area were distressed. This tends to imply that `typical' sales ARE distressed sales to the extent that that distressed sales make this market (at least when it comes to lots). What we do have here is a recent sale of the subject in a market that (very likely) is in distress. Furthermore, this appears to be a "two-tiered market". There are buyers of completed homes, as well as buyers of lots (with different motivations and constraints). Therefore, I do give consideration to the $55,000 purchase price in 2018 as the appropriate 'just value', but I do not consider any additional COS deduction warranted in this case because there is apparent distress in the lot sales market. Relief is granted to $55,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00504: 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 2019-00504 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 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. 2019-00504 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑/ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00505 Parcel ID 35990960005 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FCti Property 2643 47THSTSW The petitioner is: RI taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address 111other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34116 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 121 Granted your petition ❑ 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 98,441.00 98,441.00 97,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 98,441.00 98,441.00 97,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 98,441.00 98,441.00 97,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) II Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00505 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00505: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 2643 47th Street SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The site consists of approximately 0.23 acres. The subject is zoned RSF-3 & it backs to a drainage canal view. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in October 2018 for $62,500 via a tax deed. It is noted that the subject sold again to the PET on January 2, 2019 for $97,000 after going to contract in November 2018. Thus, 'the meeting of the minds' was already established by the assessment date. I give strong significance to the $97,000 sales price in this ruling. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$98,441. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales aerials, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 residual land sale indicators. The PAO concludes $1,875/FF X 80.19 FF x 0.93 x 1.00 = $139,800 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with five sales that sold in 2018. The PET seeks a value reduction to $81,500. The PET submitted a land sales grid with five land sales that sold in 2018. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #1 has dissimilar C-2 zoning & was a probate sale; thus, it is given no weight. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #2 was also part of the same probate sale & it is given very little 2019-00505 Page 2 of 4 weight. PET's sales #3 (zoned RSF-3), #4 (probate sale), & #5 (zoned RMF-6) all closed for $80,000 each during 2018. The PET notes that the subject purchase of$97,000 that closed in January 2, 2019 actually went to contract in November 2018. Thus, the meeting of the minds related to the subject's value had occurred by the assessment date. That price is given strong consideration in this ruling. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: The subject sold to the PET on January 2, 2019 for $97,000 after going to contract in November 2018. Thus, `the meeting of the minds' was already established by the assessment date. I give strong significance to the $97,000 sales price in this ruling, yet I do not consider any COS deduction warranted. This is because of the short time frame of ownership by the seller, who had acquired the subject via a tax deed in October 2018. In fact, most of the PET's sales data involved circumstances that were somewhat distressed. This is why I do not consider any COS discount warranted. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised assessment is $97,000j, which is a very slight reduction from the contested figure of$98,441. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00505: 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 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 2019-00505 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00505 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-0485 7 GI VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00508 Parcel ID 61480640003 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FQi Property 3195 LINWOOD AVE The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34112 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 234,404.00 234,404.00 234,404.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 234,404.00 234,404.00 234,404.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 234,404.00 234,404.00 234,404.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/07/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00508 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00508: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is residential duplex built in 1960. The subjects address is 3195 Linwood Avenue, Naples, Florida. The subject has a living area of 1,598 SF, and an adjusted building size of 1,805 SF situated upon a site of 13,476 SF, or 0.31 acres. The subject is zoned RMF-6. The subject is also a part of the Gateway Triangle Mixed-Use overlay district. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in October 2018 for $720,000, which included the sale of 2 other properties. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Income Approach, Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of $234,404, or $129.86/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, building sketch, ground photographs, cost approach analysis, comparable improved sales map, comparable improved sales grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Approach analysis, final value conclusion, comparable sale photographs and sketches, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $100.00 FF X $3,150 FF X 0.75 X 0.96 = $226,800 via the use of 5 'residual' land value indicators that are derived from improved sales. Impact fees were already inherent in those lot values. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($68,804), resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$295,604 to support the subject's assessment of$234,404. THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 5 improved sales. Adjustments are applied for dissimilar conditions in order to derive an indicator of $157/SF of adjusted area. The PAO concludes $157/SF X 1,805 SF = $283,000 (rounded) for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). This appears to be a good approach worthy of strong weight, as it appears 4 of the 5 sales 2019-00508 Page 2 of 4 used are older duplex properties like the subject. Sale #5 is a 4-plex that is a little newer (i.e. built in 1984) and given less weight. However, the $283,000 value conclusion appears reasonable. The PAO does provide exterior photographs & sketches of his improved sales. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO projects rent at $902.50/month gross X 12 months/year X 2 units = $21,660, vacancy/collection loss at $1,083, expenses at $6,173 (i.e. 30% of EGI), and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of$14,404 for a value indication of$192,000, or $120/SF. I do not give the Income Approach much weight because a.) there is no support provided for the rent (or any other input), and b.) duplexes often do not cash flow to the extent of other apartment buildings with more units. Often, duplexes are purchased for owner-occupancy in half the building, while sometimes a related family member will live in the other half. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET did not provide any financial or market information related to the subject. The PET verbally indicated she would be happy with a value reduction to $192,000, which is based upon the PAO's Income Approach conclusions. As for evidence, the PET only submitted a 1-page email indicating this subject duplex (3195 Linwood) was purchased in late 2018 with the 3232 Linwood duplex. However, the PET states the 3232 Linwood property's assessment remained unchanged from 2018 to 2019; however, this subject (3195 Linwood) duplex increased from $162,989 in 2018 to $234,404 in 2019. The PET requests similar treatment for the subject. Mr. Staruch argues there are physical (i.e. both lot & building size) differences tween the two Linwood duplexes, which makes their assessments differ. RULING: As was noted earlier, the subject last sold as part of a 3-property acquisition in October 2018 for $720,000. The 2 other properties were TP 523 (with a 2019 just value of$146,367) and TP-512 (with a 2019 just value of$142,810). When adding the subject's just value with the other two, the sum of the three 2019 just values is $523,581, which is 72.7% of the $720,000 acquisition, as noted by Mr. Quinby. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO's assessment is upheld based heavily upon the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00508: 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 2019-00508 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 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. 2019-00508 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485VR. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. �$ Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑/ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00509 Parcel ID 62253680008 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FiCti Property 5237 JENNINGSST The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 69,120.00 69,120.00 55,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 69,120.00 69,120.00 55,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 69,120.00 69,120.00 55,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00509 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00509: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing's testimony & evidence is similar to TP-503, 504, 509, 510, & 511 . Each subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Naples Manor. This one petition's address is 5237 Jennings Street, Naples, Florida. It is a heavily wooded site which consists of 8,100 SF (i.e. 0.19 acres). The subject is zoned RSF-4 & it has a residential view. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in August 2018 for $55,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$69,120, or $8.53/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a grid & map of 6 residual land value indicators from the 6 homestead properties, each with 60 front feet (like the subject). These are not actual land sales; thus, the PAO deducts the depreciated improvement assessed value portion from each respective sales price of the respective improved home sale to get a `residual' amount remaining for each lot. The PAO also gives consideration to lot depth factors. The PAO concludes $96,100, or $2,225 FF for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO indicates he did not use actual lot sales from the immediate area because they were all foreclosure sales, bank sales, (and similar disqualified sales). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The subject's recent deed for its 2018 sale is provided. The PET stated this subject was NOT in MLS. The PET provides a separate roster of 3 2019-00509 Page 2 of 4 MLS sales. Two of the sales are on Texas Avenue that sold for $30,000 each during 2018. Sale #3 was at 5226 Mitchell Street that was purchased by this same PET for $55K in 2018. The PET fails to provide a map plotting the location of his sales. The PET also fails to provide the actual listing brochures from the sales used to determine any other circumstances that may be relevant to this hearing. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing, mainly because we have a timely purchase price of the subject. The PAO only used a `residual' technique that is based upon improved home sales. While that is one of several recognized techniques, it does not appear the PAO deducted all relevant costs (such as impact fees, commissions, site work, etc.) from those sales. The PAO also fails to provide the year of construction related to any of his residuals to be able to determine if the deducted depreciation is reasonable. The PAO should be very careful that proper techniques are employed with all the appropriate deductions made to produce credible results. It is also significant that the PAO made the statement that he did not include any lot sales, because all the lot sales that existed in the immediate area were distressed. This tends to imply that `typical' sales ARE distressed sales to the extent that that distressed sales make this market (at least when it comes to lots). What we do have here is a recent sale of the subject in a market that (very likely) is in distress. Furthermore, this appears to be a "two-tiered market". There are buyers of completed homes, as well as buyers of lots (with different motivations and constraints). Therefore, I do give consideration to the $55,000 purchase price in 2018 as the appropriate 'just value', but I do not consider any additional COS deduction warranted in this case because there is apparent distress in the lot sales market. Relief is granted to $55,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00509: 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 2019-00509 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. 2019-00509 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. V These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00510 Parcel ID 62103160005 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FQ;j Property 5442 HARDEEST The petitioner is: 71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address 1=1 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34113 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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-9.0255(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 69,120.00 69,120.00 55,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 15,305.00 15,305.00 15,305.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 15,305.00 15,305.00 15,305.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/07/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/08/2020 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/axian ❑ 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 20 1 9-005 1 0 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00510: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing's testimony & evidence is similar to TP-503, 504, 509, 510, & 511. Each subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Naples Manor. This one petition's address is 5442 Hardee Street, Naples, Florida. This site consists of 8,100 SF (i.e. 0.19 acres). The subject is zoned RSF-4 & it has a residential view. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no sales of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$69,120, or $8.53/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a grid & map of 6 residual land value indicators from the 6 homestead properties, each with 60 front feet (like the subject). These are not actual land sales; thus, the PAO deducts the depreciated improvement assessed value portion from each respective sales price of the respective improved home sale to get a `residual' amount remaining for each lot. The PAO also gives consideration to lot depth factors. The PAO concludes $96,100 ($2,225 FF X 60 FF X 0.96 X 0.75) for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO indicates he did not use actual lot sales from the immediate area because they were all foreclosure sales, bank sales, (and similar disqualified sales). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET provides a separate roster of 3 MLS sales. Two 2019-00510 Page 2 of 4 of the sales are on Texas Avenue that sold for $30,000 each during 2018. Sale #3 was at 5226 Mitchell Street that was purchased by this same PET for $55K in 2018 [and it was the subject of TP-503 on this same hearing date]. The PET fails to provide a map plotting the location of his sales. The PET also fails to provide the actual listing brochures from the sales used to determine any other circumstances that may be relevant to this hearing. It is also noted that TP-504 sold for $55K in 2018, as did TP-509. The subject and these 3 other hearings were all being heard together; thus, there are 3 examples of a 60' wide lot selling for $55,000 in this same Naples Manor neighborhood. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: For consistency with TP-503, 504, & 509 [heard together with this hearing], the PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing, mainly because we have 3 other timely lot purchases for $55,000 each of lots extremely similar to the subject [as was stated above in PET's evidence]. The PAO only used a `residual' technique that is based upon improved home sales. While that is one of several recognized techniques, it does not appear the PAO deducted all relevant costs (such as impact fees, commissions, site work, etc.) from those sales. The PAO also fails to provide the year of construction related to any of his residuals to be able to determine if the deducted depreciation is reasonable. The PAO should be very careful that proper techniques are employed with all the appropriate deductions made to produce credible results. It is also significant that the PAO made the statement that he did not include any lot sales, because all the lot sales that existed in the immediate area were distressed. This tends to imply that `typical' sales ARE distressed sales to the extent that that distressed sales make this market (at least when it comes to lots). What we do have here is a recent sale of the subject in a market that (very likely) is in distress. Furthermore, this appears to be a "two-tiered market". There are buyers of completed homes, as well as buyers of lots (with different motivations and constraints). Therefore, I do give consideration to the $55,000 purchase price in 2018 of three other lots being heard simultaneously with this lot in the same immediate neighborhood. However, I do not consider any additional COS deduction warranted in this case because there is apparent distress in the lot sales market. Relief is granted to $55,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00510: 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 2019-00510 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00510 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00511 Parcel ID 62103120003 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FCtj Property 5438 HARDEEST The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 71 Granted your petition ❑ 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 69,120.00 69,120.00 55,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 15,305.00 15,305.00 15,305.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 15,305.00 15,305.00 15,305.00 *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) [71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00511 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00511: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing's testimony & evidence is similar to TP-503, 504, 509, 510, & 511. Each subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Naples Manor. This one petition's address is 5438 Hardee Street, Naples, Florida. This site consists of 8,100 SF (i.e. 0.19 acres). The subject is zoned RSF-4 & it has a residential view. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no sales of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$69,120, or $8.53/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a grid & map of 6 residual land value indicators from the 6 homestead properties, each with 60 front feet (like the subject). These are not actual land sales; thus, the PAO deducts the depreciated improvement assessed value portion from each respective sales price of the respective improved home sale to get a `residual' amount remaining for each lot. The PAO also gives consideration to lot depth factors. The PAO concludes $96,100, or $2,225 FF for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO indicates he did not use actual lot sales from the immediate area because they were all foreclosure sales, bank sales, (and similar disqualified sales). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET provides a separate roster of 3 MLS sales. Two 2019-00511 Page 2 of 4 of the sales are on Texas Avenue that sold for $30,000 each during 2018. Sale #3 was at 5226 Mitchell Street that was purchased by this same PET for $55K in 2018 [and it was the subject of TP-503 on this same hearing date & it is highly similar to the subject]. The PET fails to provide a map plotting the location of his sales. The PET also fails to provide the actual listing brochures from the sales used to determine any other circumstances that may be relevant to this hearing. It is also noted that TP-504 sold for $55K in 2018, as did TP-509. The subject and these 3 other hearings were all being heard together; thus, there are 3 examples of a 60' wide lot selling for $55,000 in this same Naples Manor neighborhood. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: For consistency with TP-503, 504, 509, & 510 [heard together with this hearing], the PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing, mainly because we have 3 other timely lot purchases for $55,000 each of lots extremely similar to the subject. The PAO only used a `residual' technique that is based upon improved home sales. While that is one of several recognized techniques, it does not appear the PAO deducted all relevant costs (such as impact fees, commissions, site work, etc.) from those sales. The PAO also fails to provide the year of construction related to any of his residuals to be able to determine if the deducted depreciation is reasonable. The PAO should be very careful that proper techniques are employed with all the appropriate deductions made to produce credible results. It is also significant that the PAO made the statement that he did not include any lot sales, because all the lot sales that existed in the immediate area were distressed. This tends to imply that `typical' sales ARE distressed sales to the extent that that distressed sales make this market (at least when it comes to lots). What we do have here is a recent sale of the subject in a market that (very likely) is in distress. Furthermore, this appears to be a "two-tiered market". There are buyers of completed homes, as well as buyers of lots (with different motivations and constraints). Therefore, I do give consideration to the $55,000 purchase price in 2018 of three other lots being heard simultaneously with this lot in the same immediate neighborhood. However, I do not consider any additional COS deduction warranted in this case because there is apparent distress in the lot sales market. Relief is granted to $55,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00511: 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 2019-00511 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00511 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. FPI Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00512 Parcel ID 61482480009 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD Ftp Property 3232 LINWOOD AVE The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 142,810.00 142,810.00 142,810.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 142,810.00 142,810.00 142,810.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 142,810.00 142,810.00 142,810.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00512 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00512: PET's 523 & 512 were heard together, as they have exactly the same circumstances. The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje, & Ms. Liz Molina. The PET was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. At the hearing, I accepted a November 7, 2019 email into evidence from PAO (Jenny Blaje) to Richard Forman directing him (the PET) to check Axia for proper submittal of all of PET's evidence. The PET failed to take her advice, then complained when it was discovered PET's evidence was not timely in the record. While the PAO submitted evidence, it was not with the ability to review PET's evidence first an make any appropriate changes or corrections that may have been necessary. I refused to accept any new PET evidence at the hearing given it was not submitted timely. The PAO acted in good faith by advising the PET to check the official Axia record in advance of the evidence submittal deadline. The PAO did submit credible evidence into the record consisting of all 3 traditional approaches to value. The subject is an older duplex constructed in 1956. The PAO's Cost Approach concluded a value of$188,610, while the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach concluded a value of$188,000. The PAO provided sufficient back-up documentation for each approach. The PAO's Income Approach resulted in a lower figure, but I give that approach very little weight for this class of property. The PAO established & retained the presumption of correctness (by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00512: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00512 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V d R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00513 Parcel ID 35761320007 Petitioner name NAPLES MANOR RENTAL LLC Property 1720 46THTER SW The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address CI other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34116 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition IZ Granted your petition ❑ 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 84,072.00 84,072.00 68,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 20,429.00 20,429.00 20,429.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 20,429.00 20,429.00 20,429.00 I *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00513 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00513: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 1720 46th Terrace SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The site consists of 10,000 SF (i.e. 0.23 acres). The subject is zoned RSF-3 & has a residential view. The site has no water or sewer available. The PET says the site needs some fill, but that is not backed up by any evidence. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$84,072, or $8.41/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, ground photograph, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 5 `residual' land value indicators. The PAO concludes $1,500/FF X 80.00 FF x 0.93 x 1.00 _ $111,600 [not $111,700 used by the PAO] for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with five sales that sold in 2018. The PET seeks a value reduction within a range of$55,000 to $60,000. The PET submitted a land sales grid with five land sales that sold in 2018. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #1 has dissimilar C-2 zoning & was a probate sale; thus, it is given no weight. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #2 was also part of the same probate sale & it is given very little weight. PET's sales #3 (zoned RSF-3 was apparently a good sale & 2019-00513 Page 2 of 4 given weight), #4 (probate sale), & #5 (zoned RMF-6) all closed for $80,000 each during 2018. Consideration is also given to other hearings & testimony related to 8 vacant lot petitions in Golden Gate City. It is noted that the subject of TP-505 is also zoned RSF-3 (like the subject), but it backs to a canal view and has just 103.75 SF more of site area than the subject. Mainly because of the subject's lack of water view, I given weight to the PET's Sale #3 (zoned single family & has water/sewer available) for $80K, less 15% COS [and utility hook-up issues] = $68,000. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: I have given weight to the PET's Sale #3 (zoned single family & has water/ sewer available) for $80K, less 15% COS [and utility hook-up issues] = $68,000. Both the PAO & the PET should have done a better job of presenting relevant information with proper adjustments. The PET uses a lot of distressed data, along with sales of dissimilar zoning that are less comparable to the subject's single-family zoning. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised assessment is $68,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00513: 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 2019-00513 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00513 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑/ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00514 Parcel ID 35987920003 Petitioner name NAPLES MANOR RENTAL LLC Property 2896 47THTER SW The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address CI other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34116 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 98,208.00 98,208.00 68,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 24,383.00 24,383.00 24,383.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 24,383.00 24,383.00 24,383.00 *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) ISI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. , Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00514 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00514: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 2896 47th Terrace SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The site consists of 9,840 SF (i.e. 0.23 acres). The subject is zoned RSF-4 & has a canal view. The site has no water or sewer service available. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$98,208, or $9.98/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid/aerials, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 5 residual land sale indicators. The PAO concludes $1,800/FF X 80.00 FF x 0.93 x 1.00 = $133,900 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with five sales that sold in 2018. The PET submitted a land sales grid with five land sales that sold in 2018. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #1 has dissimilar C-2 zoning & was a probate sale; thus, it is given no weight. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #2 was also part of the same probate sale & it is given very little weight. PET's sales #3 (zoned RSF-3 was apparently a good sale & given weight), #4 (probate sale), & #5 (zoned RMF-6 for a duplex as part of divorce sale) all closed for $80,000 each during 2018. Consideration is also given to 2019-00514 Page 2 of 4 other hearings & testimony related to 8 vacant lot petitions in Golden Gate City. It is noted that the subject of TP-505 is also zoned RSF-3 (similar to the subject's RSF-4), and it also backs to a canal view and has just 263.75 SF more of site area than the subject. I give weight to the PET's Sale #3 (zoned single family & has water/sewer available) for $80K, less 15% COS [and utility hook-up issues] = $68,000. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: I have given weight to the PET's Sale #3 (zoned single family & has water/ sewer available) for $80K, less 15% COS [and utility hook-up issues] = $68,000. Both the PAO & the PET should have done a better job of presenting relevant information with proper adjustments. The PET uses a lot of distressed data, along with sales of dissimilar zoning that are less comparable to the subject's single-family zoning. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised assessment is $68,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00514: 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 2019-00514 Page 3 of 4 accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2019-00514 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. V These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00515 Parcel ID 35989320009 Petitioner name NAPLES MANOR RENTAL LLC Property 4672 25THAVE SW The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 98,674.00 98,674.00 80,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 48,156.00 48,156.00 48,156.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 48,156.00 48,156.00 48,156.00 *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) 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/07/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00515 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00515: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant single-family residential lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 4672 25th Avenue SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The site consists of 0.23 acres. The subject is zoned RSF-3 & has a canal view. The PET says the site has no water or sewer available, and the PAO questions that claim. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$98,674. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid/aerials, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 5 residual land sale indicators. The PAO concludes $1,800/FF X 80.38 FF x 0.93 x 1.00 = $134,500 [rounded] for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with five sales that sold in 2018. The PET submitted a land sales grid with five land sales that sold in 2018. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #1 has dissimilar C-2 zoning & was a probate sale; thus, it is given no weight. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #2 was also part of the same probate sale & it is given very little weight. PET's sales #3 (zoned RSF-3 was apparently a good sale & given weight), #4 (probate sale), & #5 (zoned RMF-6 for a duplex as part of divorce sale) all closed for $80,000 each during 2018. Consideration is also given to 2019-00515 Page 2 of 4 other hearings & testimony related to 8 vacant lot petitions in Golden Gate City. I give weight to the PET's Sale #3 (zoned single family & has water/sewer available) for $80K. [NOTE: The PET is warned that it is the Petitioner's job to provide any and all evidence the PET considers warranted. However, it is strongly suggested that more complete evidence, listings, maps, and related information be provided for the subject, as well as any comparable sales in VAB hearings. It is not the job of the magistrate to investigate and research the evidence presented by either party to these hearings. The ability to get relief in these VAB hearings is largely dependent upon the quality of presentation made with convincing evidence to prove the PET's position. The presentation of a small quantity of very abbreviated data will frequently result in a denial of relief.] RULING: I given weight to the PET's Sale #3 (zoned single family) for $80K. Both the PAO & the PET should have done a better job of presenting relevant information with proper adjustments. Furthermore, in an area where utility hookups exist along some streets, but not others, the parties to the hearing should have considered including engineering drawings into the record. The PET uses a lot of distressed data, along with sales of dissimilar zoning that are less comparable to the subject's single-family zoning. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised assessment is $80,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00515: 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 2019-00515 Page 3 of 4 revised just value. 2019-00515 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00516 Parcel ID 36232000004 Petitioner name NAPLES MANOR RENTAL LLC Property 1937 55THTER SW The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Q Granted your petition ❑ 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 151,900.00 151,900.00 85,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 42,169.00 42,169.00 42,169.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 42,169.00 42,169.00 42,169.00 *AII 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) LJ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ 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 2019-00516 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00516: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential corner lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 1937 55th Terrace SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The site is a 17,500 SF (i.e. 0.39 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-12 & has a commercial & alley view. The PET thinks this is more likely a duplex lot, given it has a corner location; thus, corner setbacks should apply. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$151,900, or $8.68/SF of the site area. [Note: In several locations, the PAO's data incorrectly states the subject's contested just value as $151,000. The correct figure is $151,900.] As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid/aerials, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 5 residual land sale indicators. The PAO concludes $1,630/FF X 125.00 FF x 0.98 x 1.00 = $199,675 [not $199,875 as reported by the PAO] for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with 3 sales that sold in 2018. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #1 has dissimilar C-2 zoning & was a probate sale; thus, it is given no weight. The PAO indicates PET's Sale #2 was also part of a probate sale, but at least it had 239 days on the market & closed for $80,000. PET's sale 2019-00516 Page 2 of 4 #3 was a multi-family land sale (0.36 acres) that closed for $85,000 during 2018. The subject has 0.38 acres, yet the subject has a corner lot location with additional setback issues, but they are fairly similar properties. I give strongest consideration to PET's Sale #3, as it apparently is a duplex land sale. The subject appears to be more suitable for 2 units, as well. The PAO failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. RULING: 1 . I give little weight to the PAO's `residuals' (all from triplexes), as I question whether all applicable deductions have been made and also because they have different buyer motivations than lot buyers. All 4 residuals were existing properties with income- producing buildings, while the subject is a lot. It is unknown exactly what deductions the PAO used, but it is questionable if deductions were made for commissions, septic systems, wells, etc. Also, the subject may well be more suitable for a duplex (not a triplex); thus, it would have been more desirable for the PAO to use duplex land sales (or properly use duplexes for his residual indicators). 2. The zoning of each PAO comparable is not provided. The zoning of each comparable should have been provided within the PAO's grid, and very likely the PAO should have at least considered $/SF and $/unit indicators to seek consistency in that data. Mr. Staruch brought up the topic of an overlay district (and map) that is intended for urban renewal; however, that map was not presented prior to the hearing. Also, the PAO does not relate or quantify how the overlay district impacts the subject's value (or any of the comparables presented). 3. The PET did provide a sale (#3) that closed in 2018 for $85,000 & it is given significance. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised just value is lowered to $85,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00516: 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 2019-00516 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00516 Page 4 of 4 Ed! DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. Ft These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00517 Parcel ID 36111280000 Petitioner name NAPLES MANOR RENTAL LLC Property 4981 24THAVE SW The petitioner is: 71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 El other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition WI Granted your petition ❑ 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 92,810.00 92,810.00 80,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 20,552.00 20,552.00 20,552.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 20,552.00 20,552.00 20,552.00 *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) LT Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/02/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial El 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 2019-00517 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00517: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential lot in Golden Gate City. The subject's address is 4981 24th Avenue SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The site has an area of 0.23 acres. The subject is zoned RMF-6 & has a residential view. There is no water or sewer service to the site. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of similar `Golden Gate City lot hearings' (i.e. TP-501, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, & 517).] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$92,810. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid/aerials, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 residual land sale indicators. Two are duplexes and two are single family homes. The PAO concludes $2,050/FF X 80.48 FF x 0.93 x 1.00 = 153,400 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with 3 sales that sold in 2018. Each sale sold for $80,000. There is not a great deal of information provided about the PET's sales, but they are all $80,000 sale indicators. RULING: 1. I give little weight to the PAO's `residuals' (2 from single family homes and 2 from duplexes), as I question whether all applicable deductions have been made and also because they have different buyer motivations than lot buyers. Two were existing 2019-00517 Page 2 of 3 properties with income-producing buildings, while the subject is a lot. It is unknown exactly what deductions the PAO used, but it is questionable if deductions were made for commissions, septic systems, wells, etc. 2. The PET's evidence tends to support a value of$80,000, which is a figure given significance. Due to data limitations and the frequent use of distressed circumstances by the PET for most of the sales evidence for this grouping of 8 lot petitions in Golden Gate City, I will not make any deduction for COS consideration. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised just value is lowered to $80,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00517: 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. 2019-00517 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00518 Parcel ID 36441520003 Petitioner name NAPLES MANOR RENTAL LLC Property 5235 28THPLSW The petitioner is: taxpayer of record El taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 El other, explain: Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 220,020.00 220,020.00 220,020.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 187,182.00 187,182.00 187,182.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 187,182.00 187,182.00 187,182.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/04/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00518 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00518: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a residential duplex in Golden Gate City built in 2001. The subject's address is 5235 28th Place SW, Golden Gate City, Florida. The subject has an adjusted building size of 1,904 SF situated upon a site of 11,286 SF (i.e. 0.26 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in September 2012 for $130,600. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$220,020, or $116/SF of the adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, building sketch, ground photographs, cost approach analysis, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, income approach analysis, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $81.96 FF X $2,100 FF X 0.96 = $165,231. Impact fees were already inherent in those lot sales. The land value estimate was based upon the 4 residential land sale indicators. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($118,127), resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$283,358 to support the subject's assessment of$220,020 (before any COS consideration). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 sale indicators. Sale #1 is two lots away from the subject & it sold for $277,000 before any adjustments. PAO's Sale #3 is the PET's Sale #1 that closed for $247,000 (before any adjustments). The PAO concludes $142/SF x 1,902 SF = $270,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does provide exterior photographs & sketches of his improved sales. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO projects rent at $952/month gross, vacancy/ collection loss at $1,142, expenses at $6,512, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to 2019-00518 Page 2 of 3 NOI of$15,194 for a value indication of$202,600, or $106/SF(before any COS consideration) . I do not give the Income Approach much weight because a.) there is no support provided for the rent (or any other input), and b.) duplexes often do not cash flow to the extent of other apartment buildings with more units. Often, duplexes are purchased for owner-occupancy in half the building, while sometimes a related family member will live in the other half. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET did not provide any financial information related to the subject's operations. The PET only submitted a sales grid from MLS with 2 sales that sold in 2018. The PET's Sale #1 ($247,000) is the PAO's Sale #3. The PET's Sale #2 closed for $265,000. It has an unknown building size and unknown lot size. Interestingly, both of the PET's sales are greater than the contested just value. The PET's arguments for relief are extremely weak. RULING: The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO (especially the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, which is the best indicator for this class of property). The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00518: 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. 2019-00518 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00519 Parcel ID 47930000146 Petitioner name NAPLES MANOR RENTAL LLC Property 3730 GUILFORD OAKS LN The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 74,005.00 74,005.00 60,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 43,864.00 43,864.00 43,864.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 43,864.00 43,864.00 43,864.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00519 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00519: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential lot in Naples. It has an irregular shape & is located near the end of a cul-de-sac. The subject's address is 3730 Guilford Oaks Lane, Naples, Florida. The site is a 6,969 SF (i.e. 0.16 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6 & has a multi-family residential view. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in June 2014 for $32,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$74,005. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. The PAO also submitted evidence at the hearing of data pertaining to the PET's sales. At the hearing, I accepted a package of rebuttal evidence from the PAO related to the PET's land sales. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 5 `residual' land sale indicators. The PAO concludes $2,065/FF X 71.71 FF X 0.86 x 1.00 = $127,350 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO's first sale is next door to the subject & sold for $210,000. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a land sales grid with 5 sales that sold in 2018. Lot sales #4 and #5 are mobile home lots given no significance at this hearing. That leaves the PET with 3 lot sales that sold for $45,000, $50,000, and $60,000, for an average of$51,667. The PAO provided back-up details related to these lots and none of them are on cul-de-sacs like the subject. The PET only provides a single-line roster of information from MLS, but no map locating the sales & no detailed information. The PET seeks a value reduction to $58,000, stating that value is similar to the 2018 2019-00519 Page 2 of 3 assessment. RULING: I question the deductions made by the PAO in the derivation of the `residual' value per front foot. I give weight to the PET's highest (of 3) lot sales, which is $60,000 and do not consider any COS adjustment warranted because the subject is located on a cul-de-sac and the comp is not. That sale also has an area of 0.16 acres like the subject. The data provided by both parties is extremely limited and not as comparable as would normally be desired. The good thing for the PET is that at least the PET did provide lot sales; whereas, the PAO did not. The use of residuals has its limitations. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised assessment is $60,000 (the PET's highest lot sale). Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00519: 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. 2019-00519 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00523 Parcel ID 61482440007 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FQJ Property 3232 LINWOOD AVE The petitioner is: E1 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary ZI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 146,367.00 146,367.00 146,367.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 146,367.00 146,367.00 146,367.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 146,367.00 146,367.00 146,367.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00523 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00523: PET's 523 & 512 were heard together, as they have exactly the same circumstances. The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje, & Ms. Liz Molina. The PET was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. At the hearing, I accepted a November 7, 2019 email into evidence from PAO (Jenny Blaje) to Richard Forman directing him (the PET) to check Axia for proper submittal of all of PET's evidence. The PET failed to take her advice, then complained when it was discovered PET's evidence was not timely in the record. While the PAO submitted evidence, it was not with the ability to review PET's evidence first an make any appropriate changes or corrections that may have been necessary. I refused to accept any new PET evidence at the hearing given it was not submitted timely. The PAO acted in good faith by advising the PET to check the official Axia record in advance of the evidence submittal deadline. The PAO did submit credible evidence into the record consisting of 2 traditional and applicable approaches to value. The subject is an older duplex constructed in 1956. The PAO's Cost Approach concluded a value of$163,167, while the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach concluded a value of$188,000. The PAO provided sufficient back-up documentation for each approach. The PAO did not perform an Income Approach, given it is not deemed relevant to this property. The PAO established & retained the presumption of correctness (by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00523: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have timely submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00523 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00524 Parcel ID 61481800004 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD F(iti Property 3247 FRANCIS AVE The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34112 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 110,400.00 110,400.00 62,700.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 54,120.00 54,120.00 54,120.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 54,120.00 54,120.00 54,120.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/06/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00524 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00524: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential lot in Naples. The subject's address is 3247 Francis Avenue, Naples, Florida. The site consists of 6,738 SF (i.e. 0.15 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6 [also in the GTMUD- R overlay district] & has a residential view. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of 4 similar `Naples Better Homes' lot hearings (i.e. TP-524, 528, 529, & 531). These four petitions share a common audio file.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject was a part of a multi-folio sale of 5 total properties on November 2017 for $620,000. There was no price allocation associated with each of the 5 properties provided to this hearing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$110,400, or $16.38/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 `residual' land sale indicators (i.e. derived from improved sales). The PAO does not include any vacant lot sales. The PAO concludes $2,700/FF X 50 FF x 0.96 x 1.00 = $129,600 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted an MLS comparable sale sheet for 3164 Connecticut Avenue that the PET also purchased. The price was $96,000 [cash] with a closing in May 2018 for this 75' X 135' lot. That price equates to $1,280/FF, which is less than half of the PAO's $2,700/FF indicator discussed above. That same price also equates to $9.48/SF of lot area. The PET states that was the only lot sale in 2019-00524 Page 2 of 4 2018 in Naples Better Homes. That transaction was in MLS with a DOM (days on market) statistic of 46 days. Impact fee credits were included with that sale, given it had been previously developed. The PET also provides a roster of 22 lot sales from different neighborhoods around the East Naples area (per the PET). Some of those lot sales (at lease 3, per the PAO) were mobile home lots that have no relevance to this hearing. In the lower, right-hand portion of the PET's exhibit of 22 lots, it indicates the PET's desire to have petition TP-524 to have a value of$58,000 (rounded), based upon the $/acre $/FF indicators from their roster. There was no map associated with the roster of sales, yet it is very possible some of the sales are good indicators for land values, based upon their $/ acre and $/FF indictors. I give the PET's roster of 22 sales secondary weight, and I disregard any of the mobile home lots. RULING: 1.I do not give any particular significance to the bulk purchase of 5 properties for $620,000 the subject was involved with) back in late 2017. That sale involved 2 vacant lots, plus three homes; thus, it is difficult to quantify the value contribution of each as it relates to that bulk sale. The PET does acknowledge that the homes [individually] did contribute more than the vacant lots. 2. I do give weight to the PET's lot sale provided at 3164 Connecticut Avenue for $1,280/FF, or $9.48/SF. After applying those indicators to the subject, I derive values of $61,440 and $63,876, respectively, for an average of$62,700 (rounded), which is a figure given primary weight in this ruling. That figure is relatively close to the PET's roster indication of$58,000 (rounded), but that roster did include some mobile home lots that helped skew the indicators lower. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised assessment is $62,700. I do not consider any additional COS discount warranted, as there is a lot of information related to the subject (and sales) not provided at this hearing. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00524: 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 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 2019-00524 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00524 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑/ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00525 Parcel ID 61481760005 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FCI Property 1948 AIRPORT RDS The petitioner is: 171 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition CJI Granted your petition ❑ 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 153,576.00 153,576.00 141,610.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 132,840.00 132,840.00 132,840.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 132,840.00 132,840.00 132,840.00 *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) [7] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/08/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/08/2020 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/axial ❑ 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 2019-00525 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00525: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The consists of an old single-family home built in 1956 situated upon a commercial (corner) lot (8,330 SF or 0.19 acres) zoned C-4. The subject's address is 1948 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida. The subject has a view of busy Airport Road South. The older home has relatively little value, given it only has 600 SF of base floor area. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject was a part of a multi-folio sale of 5 total properties on November 2017 for $620,000. There was no price allocation associated with each of the 5 properties provided to this hearing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$153,576, or $18.44/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, building sketch, ground photographs, comparable improved sales map, comparable improved sales grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 3 lot sales and one `residual' land indicators. The residual sale #3 is disregarded, since it sold for $5.25M and is a non-comparable transaction. The remaining 3 lot sales were zoned C-3 ($25.32/SF), C-4 ($17.93/SF), and C-4 ($24.53/SF) & they offer far greater comparability. The PAO concludes $20 SF X 8,330 SF = $166,600 for the Sales Comparison Approach conclusion (before any COS consideration). The PAO did not give the building any contributory value, given the age of the structure. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a single-line MLS sheet showing the $620,000 bulk sale (of 5 properties) that included the subject. That transaction was a mix 2019-00525 Page 2 of 3 of lots & homes; thus, it is given no significance at this hearing because there is no known price break-out for each property. The PET also provides a full MLS listing brochure for a home sale for $160,000 at 2148 Jefferson Avenue; however, that sale does not appear to be on commercial land; thus, it is given no weight for the valuation of the subject's commercial land. RULING: The PAO did provide better evidence by showing 3 good commercial land sales from the immediate area. However, the PAO failed to make a COS adjustment. Thus, the final just value for this petition is lowered to $166,600 x 85% = $141,610. In order to put the $620,000 bulk sale of 5 properties (i.e. TP-524, 525, 526, 527 & 528) into perspective, their combined reductions via these hearings today results in a value of $537,840 which equates to 88.5% of the $620,000 bulk price paid in November 2017. Thus, a high degree of COS consideration was in fact given to the combined transaction that closed more than a year prior to the assessment date. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00525: 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. 2019-00525 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 ! F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00526 Parcel ID 61481720003 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FQi Property 1924 AIRPORT RDS The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 [' other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 11 Granted your petition ❑ 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 132,121.00 132,121.00 119,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 116,043.00 116,043.00 116,043.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 116,043.00 116,043.00 116,043.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/06/2020 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00526 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00526: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The consists of an old single-family home built in 1956 situated upon a commercial (interior) lot (7,000 SF or 0.16 acres) zoned C-4. The subject's address is 1924 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida. The subject has a view of busy Airport Road South. The older home has relatively little value, given it only has 600 SF of base floor area. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject was a part of a multi-folio sale of 5 total properties on November 2017 for $620,000. There was no price allocation associated with each of the 5 properties provided to this hearing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$132,121, or $18.87/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, building sketch, ground photographs, comparable improved sales map, comparable improved sales grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 3 lot sales and one `residual' land indicators. The residual sale #3 is disregarded, since it sold for $5.25M and is a non-comparable transaction. The remaining 3 lot sales were zoned C-3 ($25.32/SF), C-4 ($17.93/SF), and C-4 ($24.53/SF) & they offer far greater comparability. The PAO concludes $20 SF X 7,000 SF = $140,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach conclusion (before any COS consideration). The PAO did not give the building any contributory value, given the age of the structure. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a single-line MLS sheet showing the $620,000 bulk sale (of 5 properties) that included the subject. That transaction was a mix 2019-00526 Page 2 of 3 of lots & homes; thus, it is given no significance at this hearing because there is no known price break-out for each property. The PET also provides a full MLS listing brochure for a home sale for $160,000 at 2148 Jefferson Avenue; however, that sale does not appear to be on commercial land; thus, it is given no weight for the valuation of the subject's commercial land. RULING: The PAO did provide better evidence by showing 3 good commercial land sales from the immediate area. However, the PAO failed to make a COS adjustment. Thus, the final just value for this petition is lowered to $140,000 x 85% = $119,000. In order to put the $620,000 bulk sale of 5 properties (i.e. TP-524, 525, 526, 527 & 528) into perspective, their combined reductions via these hearings today results in a value of $537,840 which equates to 88.5% of the $620,000 bulk price paid in November 2017. Thus, significant COS consideration was in fact given to the combined transaction that took place more than a year prior to the 1/1/2019 assessment date. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00526: 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. 2019-00526 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR0 R4851 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00527 Parcel ID 61481680004 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FQi Property 1896 AIRPORT RDS The petitioner is: Ii taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition _L. Granted your petition ❑ 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 133,251.00 133,251.00 119,850.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 117,140.00 117,140.00 117,140.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 117,140.00 117,140.00 117,140.00 *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) (VI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/06/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00527 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00527: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The consists of an old single-family home built in 1956 situated upon a commercial (interior) lot (7,050 SF or 0.16 acres) zoned C-4. The subject's address is 1896 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida. The subject has a view of busy Airport Road South. The older home has relatively little value, given it only has 600 SF of base floor area. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject was a part of a multi-folio sale of 5 total properties on November 2017 for $620,000. There was no price allocation associated with each of the 5 properties provided to this hearing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$133,251, or $18.90/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, building sketch, ground photographs, comparable improved sales map, comparable improved sales grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 3 lot sales and one `residual' land indicators. The residual sale #3 is disregarded, since it sold for $5.25M and is a non-comparable transaction. The remaining 3 lot sales were zoned C-3 ($25.32/SF), C-4 ($17.93/SF), and C-4 ($24.53/SF) & they offer far greater comparability. The PAO concludes $20 SF X 7,050 SF = $141,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach conclusion (before any COS consideration). The PAO did not give the building any contributory value, given the age of the structure. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a single-line MLS sheet showing the $620,000 bulk sale (of 5 properties) that included the subject. That transaction was a mix 2019-00527 Page 2 of 3 of lots & homes; thus, it is given no significance at this hearing because there is no known price break-out for each property. The PET also provides a full MLS listing brochure for a home sale for $160,000 at 2148 Jefferson Avenue; however, that sale does not appear to be on commercial land; thus, it is given no weight for the valuation of the subject's commercial land. RULING: The PAO did provide better evidence by showing 3 good commercial land sales from the immediate area. However, the PAO failed to make a COS adjustment. Thus, the final just value for this petition is lowered to $141,000 x 85% = $119,850. In order to put the $620,000 bulk sale of 5 properties (i.e. TP-524, 525, 526, 527 & 528) into perspective, their combined reductions via these hearings today results in a value of $537,840 which equates to 88.85% of the $620,000 bulk price paid in November 2017. Thus, significant COS consideration was in fact given to the combined transaction that took place more than a year prior to the 1/1/2019 assessment date. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00527: 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 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. 2019-00527 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V e R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00528 Parcel ID 61481640002 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD Fqii Property 1888 AIRPORT RDS The petitioner is: [✓ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presentedby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-99.0255(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 105,750.00 105,750.00 105,750.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 77,550.00 77,550.00 77,550.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 77,550.00 77,550.00 77,550.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00528 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00528: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant commercial lot in Naples. The subject's address is 1888 Airport-Pulling Road South, Naples, Florida. The site consists of 7,050 SF (i.e. 0.16 acres). The subject is zoned C-4 & has a busy traffic view along Airport Road South. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject was a part of a multi-folio sale of 5 total properties on November 2017 for $620,000. There was no price allocation associated with each of the 5 properties provided to this hearing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$105,750, or $15/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 `residual' land sale indicators (i.e. derived from 3 improved sales & 1 improved listing). The PAO does not include any vacant lot sales. The PAO concludes $20/SF X 7,050 SF = $141,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a single-line MLS sheet showing the $620,000 bulk sale (of 5 properties) that included the subject. That transaction was a mix of lots & homes; thus, it is given no particular significance at this hearing because there is no known price break-out for each property. The PET also submitted another MLS roster of 7 sales that range from $45K-$65K. The closing dates are not known, as the sheet is cut off showing that column, but the search criteria only included sales that closed during 2018. The zoning of each sale is also not provided. However, the search 2019-00528 Page 2 of 3 criteria was specifically for land use code "00-Vacant Residential". The PET also provides a roster of 22 lot sales from different neighborhoods around the East Naples area (per the PET). Some of those lot sales (at lease 3, per the PAO) were mobile home lots that have no relevance to this hearing. In the lower, right-hand portion of the PET's exhibit of 22 lots, it indicates the PET's desire to have petition TP-528 to have a value of$58,000 (rounded), based upon the $/acre $/FF indicators from their roster. There was no map associated with the roster of sales, but apparently none of them are commercial sites like the subject. I give the PET's roster of 22 sales NO WEIGHT, as that data is irrelevant to the subject's property type. Given the subject is commercial land, it does not appear the PET provides any useful evidence to this hearing to refute the PAO's assessment. There is grossly inadequate discussion or proof provided by the PET as to how his submitted evidence relates to the value of commercial land. RULING: The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00528: 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. 2019-00528 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00529 Parcel ID 61430800000 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FQi Property 3232 CONNECTICUT AVE The petitioner is: E✓ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address 1=I other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 2 Granted your petition ❑ 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 110,400.00 110,400.00 58,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 54,120.00 54,120.00 54,120.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 54,120.00 54,120.00 54,120.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00529 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00529: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential lot in Naples. The subject's address is 3232 Connecticut Avenue, Naples, Florida. The site consists of 6,738 SF (i.e. 0.15 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6 [also in the GTMUD-R overlay district] & has a residential view. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of 4 similar `Naples Better Homes' lot hearings (i.e. TP-524, 528, 529, & 531). These four petitions share a common audio file.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no transfers of the subject in the 5 years prior to the assessment date; however, the subject was purchased for $45,000 by the PET on January 28, 2019 (i.e. shortly after the assessment date). I would appear the `meeting of the minds' (i.e. contract date) was before the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$110,400, or $16.38/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 `residual' land sale indicators (i.e. derived from improved sales). The PAO does not include any vacant lot sales. The PAO concludes $2,900/FF X 50 FF x 0.96 x 1.00 = $139,200 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted a sales grid with 3 sales that sold in 2018. However, the PAO notes that the first sale is 5 miles from the subject, the 2nd sale has no access (and is 3 miles away), and the 3rd sale is 3 miles away and was the flip sale after its seller acquired it from a tax deed. I give no weight to those 3 sales. 2019-00529 Page 2 of 4 The PET also provides a roster of 22 lot sales from different neighborhoods around the East Naples area (per the PET). Some of those lot sales (at lease 3, per the PAO) were mobile home lots that have no relevance to this hearing. In the lower, right-hand portion of the PET's exhibit of 22 lots, it indicates the PET's desire to have petition TP-529 to have a value of$58,000 (rounded), based upon the $/acre $/FF indicators from their roster. There was no map associated with the roster of sales, yet it is very possible some of the sales are good indicators for land values, based upon their $/acre and $/FF indictors. I give the PET's roster of 22 sales weight, after disregarding any of the mobile home lots. As noted above, the subject was purchased for $45,000 by the PET on January 28, 2019 (i.e. shortly after the assessment date). It would appear the `meeting of the minds' (i.e. contract date) was before the assessment date. However, it is unknown if that subject sale was fully arm's length or how much market exposure it had. Apparently, the seller approached the PET directly to see if they were interested, since the PET already owned property in the area. I give the $45,000 sale little weight. The PET seeks a value reduction to $58,000. RULING: Based upon the best evidence presented, the PET's roster of 22 lot sales is given greatest weight, except that the mobile home lots are disregarded. The PET seeks a value reduction to $58,000 after just paying $45,000 for the subject in late January 2019. It appears the PET is being reasonable by comparison with the other residential petitions heard in this group of 4 petitions (all heard together). I seriously question the PAO's proper deductions used in his residual analysis. Some vacant lot sales should have been sought as a test of reasonableness. It also does not make sense that the subject's former owner would have sold the subject for $45,000 if it was worth remotely close to the PAO's residual conclusion of$139,200. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The revised assessment is $58,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00529: 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 2019-00529 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00529 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00530 Parcel ID 61430840002 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FCiti Property 3216 CONNECTICUT AVE The petitioner is: 71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address [' other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34112 Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presentedby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,478.00 133,478.00 133,478.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 54,582.00 54,582.00 54,582.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 54,582.00 54,582.00 54,582.00 *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) [7! Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00530 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00530: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a single-family residential home of 572 base square feet built in 1954. The subject's address is 3216 Connecticut Avenue, Naples, Florida. This site consists of 6,738 SF (i.e. 0.15 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6 & has a residential view. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no sales of the subject in the last 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$133,478, or $19.81/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, building sketch, ground photographs, comparable land sales grid, comparable improved sales map, comparable improved sales grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, comparable sales ground photographs and sketches, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $50/FF X $2,650 FF X 0.96 = $127,200. Impact fees were already inherent in the 6 residual land value indicators. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($23,078), resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$150,278 to support the subject's assessment of$133,478. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 6 improved sale indicators. I disregard sales #1 & #5, given both are much newer than the subject. The PAO concludes $158,000, or $276 SF for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted an MLS comparable sale of a 3/2 home that closed for $160,000 in 2018. The PET seeks a value reduction to $73,000. The 2019-00530 Page 2 of 3 PET's evidence is weak, given it only has one sale indicator, while the PAO has 4 similar/old home sales on small lots from the immediate area. RULING: The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00530: 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. 2019-00530 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORICollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 7 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00531 Parcel ID 61430920003 Petitioner name SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC, % RICHARD FCj Property 3164 CONNECTICUT AVE The petitioner is: 71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34112 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presenteby property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9d.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 165,600.00 165,600.00 81,600.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 165,600.00 165,600.00 81,600.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 165,600.00 165,600.00 81,600.00 *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) LT Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/03/2020 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/07/2020 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00531 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00531: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Richard & Camille Forman. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant multi-family residential lot in Naples. The subject's address is 3164 Connecticut Avenue, Naples, Florida. The site consists of 10,107 SF (i.e. 0.23 acres). The subject is zoned RMF-6 & has a residential view. [NOTE: This hearing is part of a group of 4 similar `Naples Better Homes' lot hearings (i.e. TP-524, 528, 529, & 531). These four petitions share a common audio file.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in May 2018 for $93,500. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$165,600, or $16.38/SF of the site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, aerial photograph, subject location map, comparable sales map, comparable sales grid, and the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 4 `residual' land sale indicators (i.e. derived from improved sales). The PAO does not include any vacant lot sales. The PAO concludes $3,250/FF X 75 FF x 0.96 x 1.00 = $234,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE The PET submitted an MLS subject sale data sheet. The PET provides the MLS brochure for the subject's recent (2018) acquisition for $96,000. It shows 46 days on market (DOM). the PET mentioned a sale next door that sold for $98,000, which helps to support the PET's recent acquisition price of$96,000. There is no reason to believe the subject's recent sale should not get full consideration; thus, the subject's assessment should be reduced to $96,000 X 85% = $81,600. RULING: I have serious doubts about whether all proper deductions were made by the 2019-00531 Page 2 of 3 PAO in his `residual' analysis. Regardless, the better comparables for a vacant lot would be other vacant lots. The best evidence presented at this hearing is what the PET just paid for the subject in an open market sale for $96,000 in 2018. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. After allowing for 15% COS from the recent sales price, the subject's just value is reduced to $81,600. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00531: 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. 2019-00531 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00533 Parcel ID 68390000529 Petitioner name PAULA S. & DAVID A. KUTLICK Property 1408 VIA PORTOFINO The petitioner is: 17I taxpayer of record [' taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34108 other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,025,898.00 1,025,898.00 1,025,898.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,025,898.00 1,025,898.00 1,025,898.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,025,898.00 1,025,898.00 1,025,898.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right the petitioner may have to bring action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C]. WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/04/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00533 Page 1 of 1 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V e R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00536 Parcel ID 27631480001 Petitioner name GINA DONIE TRUST Property 225 CONNERS AVE The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34108 other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,465,786.00 2,465,786.00 2,465,786.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,465,786.00 2,465,786.00 2,465,786.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,415,786.00 2,415,786.00 2,415,786.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right the petitioner may have to bring action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/04/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiln ❑ 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 2019-00536 Page 1 of 1 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00540 Parcel ID 00287480003 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 13020 LIVINGSTONRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [✓ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34105 other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 17,528,734.00 17,528,734.00 17,528,734.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 14,541,650.00 14,541,650.00 14,541,650.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 14,541,650.00 14,541,650.00 14,541,650.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/19/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/20/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00540 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00540: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mission Hills Station, LLC.) was represented by Ms. Katelyn Avello with Ryan. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an unanchored shopping center known as "Marquesa Plaza", which was built in 2007. The subject's address is 13020 Livingston Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 95,016 SF situated upon a net usable site [disregarding a conservation easement] of 574,862 SF (i.e. 13.20 acres). The subject was at 93% occupancy, as of the assessment date. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2010 for $11M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$17,528,734 or $184/SF of adjusted building area. The 2019 just value increased 30.2% (i.e. $4,068,130) from the 2018 just value. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF, or $14,371,550, plus $1,742,212 of impact fees for a total of$16,113,762 (which is 91.9% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 13 commercial land sale indicators. Seven of the 13 land sales are actual site sales, while 6 are `residual' indicators given less weight. Land Sales #4 ($21.67/SF), #9 ($28.64/SF), and #12 ($17.18/SF) are the closest to the subject. #12 is also relatively similar in large site size. 2019-00540 Page 2 of 4 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 $8,034,460 & site improvements/paving at $919,749, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$25,068,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 13 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$416.67/SF, with an average of$246.24/SF. More importantly, the non-anchored & most comparable sales are sales #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and #10 and they have an average sales price per square foot of$240.60. The PAO concludes $230/SF X 95,016 SF = $21,854,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). This approach appears to be well-supported. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of $1,496,502 for a value indication of$18,706,000, or $197/SF (before COS consideration). It is noted that the PET project's rents at $24.00 (gross); thus, the PAO & PET are only $1.00/SF on a gross basis. However, the PET does not apply a vacancy rate; thus, the PET's EGI is actually greater than the subject's EGI by $231,780. And in fact, the PET's NOI is $114,53 greater than the subject's NOI. The PAO's use of a 10% vacancy rate may be a little excessive, given the subject was at 93% occupancy on the assessment date. Other CoStar vacancy information suggests a vacancy rate in the 6-8% range probably is more reasonable. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 28 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim Notice, subject's aerial photographs, Income Approach Analysis, subject's rent roll, Naples Vacancy Analysis article by CoStar, CoStar's SW Florida Retail Market rates/occupancy levels/inventories, RERC Second Tier rates from May 2019, CBRE rates for US Retail Neighborhood/ Community Centers, RealtyRates.com office & retail statistics, CBRE Cap Rate Survey (2nd half 2018), PwC Valuation Issues article, Beshears & Associates Shopping Center Sales roster, CoStar Overall Construction Summary map, Bulletin PTO 11-01, and Form DR-493. The PET seeks a value reduction to $15,070,000. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $24/SF, 0% vacancy, 32% expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 9.09%. The PET concludes a value of $15,070,000. RULING: 1.The PAO's land value appears aggressive at $25/SF for the subject's large size; however, a more reasonable value of$18/SF [applied to the subject's 'net' area] still supports the assessment at $21.043M, leaving more than 15% COS consideration. 2.The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach [$18.575M after COS] appears to be a very good approach, given there are 6 unanchored centers available for comparison that average $246.24/SF, as compared to the subject's just value of$184.48/SF. Given the ages and locations of the sales, the subject should be able to compete on part with those transactions, which collectively do support the assessment. 3.From an Income Approach perspective, I give weight to the PET's EGI ($2,369,640), 2019-00540 Page 3 of 4 30% ($710,892) expenses, loaded cap rate of 7.789% (i.e. the PwC rate of 6.67% +1.089%) applied to NOI of$1,658,748, resulting in a value indication of$21.296M, less 15% COS = $18.1M in support of the contested just value of$17,528,734. 4.In conclusion, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00540: 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. 2019-00540 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00542 Parcel ID 56990160004 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 840 ELKCAMCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 0 other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ 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 3,357,770.00 3,357,770.00 3,357,770.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,056,934.00 3,056,934.00 3,056,934.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,056,934.00 3,056,934.00 3,056,934.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00542 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00542: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did attend the hearing by Ms. Katelyn Avello for Ryan. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to (or at) the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00542: The Petitioner did attend the hearing but did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00542 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.085 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00543 Parcel ID 56930040003 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 1001 BARFIELDDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,997,981.00 1,849,763.00 1,849,763.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,863,848.00 1,849,763.00 1,849,763.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,863,848.00 1,849,763.00 1,849,763.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ 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 2019-00543 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00543: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did attend the hearing by Ms. Katelyn Avello for Ryan. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to (or at) the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data' by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00543: The Petitioner did attend the hearing but did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00543 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENTBOARD DR-485V e R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00545 Parcel ID 66270240605 Petitioner name WATERSIDE AT PELICAN BAY LLC, Property 5489 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 2 Granted your petition ❑ 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 8,037,449.00 8,037,449.00 4,700,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,037,449.00 8,037,449.00 4,700,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,037,449.00 8,037,449.00 4,700,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00545 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00545: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Waterside at Pelican Bay, LLC.) was represented by Ms. Catherine Corteau. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is the Nordstrom's department store at the Waterside Shops. The subject was built as a 2-story structure in 2008. The subject's address is 5489 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 77,295 SF situated upon a site of 56,086 SF (i.e. 1.29 acres). The mall has a parking garage and other s shared parking areas used by the subject's employees and patrons. There is also a Sak's 5th Avenue in this same mall. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There has not been a transfer or sale of the subject in the last five years. JUST VALUE CONTESTED & EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$8,037,449, which equates to $103.98/SF of adjusted building area, or $143.31/SF of the total land area. Both parties submitted evidence into the record prior to this hearing. Unless stated otherwise in this ruling, the evidence is considered material, relevant, and credible, unless stated otherwise. Evidence (if any) submitted at the hearing will be identified. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$8,037,449. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject's tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, land sales supportive data/aerials, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Income Capitalization Approach, subject's legal description (from its lease), ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, confidential 2018 rental data reported to the PAO, Freestanding Retail Study Conclusions, Big Box Retail data (US Markets & Collier County), RERC Return Expectations by Property Type (4th Quarter 2018), building permit info (2008 to present) with a permit value of$13.5M, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $45/SF, or $2,523,885, plus $1,641,966 of impact fees for a total of$4,165,851 (which is 51.8% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 4 commercial land sales all located in Collier County. The PAO provides aerial photos and some additional details ford each of his land sales. Land Sale #1 ($30.38/SF) was purchased in 3/2019 for a car dealership further north of the subject on the west side of Tamiami Trail North. It was under contract on the assessment date; thus, it is given consideration. Land Sale #2 ($56.17/SF) is a triangular site zoned C-4 purchased in May 2018 for future (possible mixed-use) development at a Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard. The former 2019-00545 Page 2 of 6 Burger King and gas station were removed from the site. The PAO indicates he thinks this sale (#2) offers the best comparability among his sales presented. Land Sale #3 ($55.54/SF) is a smaller (27,007 SF) site purchased [likely for a restaurant] in March 2017 on the west side of Naples Boulevard. Land Sale #4 ($40.14/SF) is extremely close to Land Sale #3 and also on the west side of Naples Boulevard. It was purchased in June 2016 for an Aldi grocery store. Land Sales #2 & #3 are basically outparcels to a Costco. 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 $9,402,354 (but no site improvements, giving parking is provided by the mall) resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$13,568,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 7 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $80-$285/SF. Sale #1 ($213/SF) is a fee simple sale of a former Toys-R-Us that closed in late 2018. Sale #2 ($170/SF) was a leased fee sale in mid-2017 with Hobby Lobby secured as a tenant. Sale #3 ($235/SF) fee simple sale that was a dark Sports Authority that was purchased by El Dorado Furniture. It closed in September 2016. Sale #4 ($285/SF) was a leased fee sale purchased to remodel and expand the existing structure for Orchard Hardware's occupancy [and now it is dark again]. Sale #5 ($209/SF) was a leased fee sale in April 2016 with Dick's Sporting Goods. Sale #6 ($104/SF) closed in October 2014 for a Dillard's in Southgate Mall in Sarasota. Sale #7 ($80/SF) closed in mid-2014 as a former Albertson's that has been expanded and remodeled, and should be re-opening soon as an upgraded market/grocery store. The PAO concludes $175/SF X 77,295 SF = $13,527,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects gross rent at $14/SF (i.e. $10 + $4 CAM), vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 20.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to the NOI of$822,419 for a value indication of$10,966,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO includes a chart of 9 large anchor lease rates below his Income Approach exhibit. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 10 pages of the subject's evidence consisting of the hearing notice, legal description, site plan/layout of the subject's mall and stores, Korpacz Realty Advisors roster of 11 department store leases (nationwide), 5- page article (dated 4/24/2016) from the Wall Street Journal, and an email from the PET when submitting evidence and asking for an exchange of evidence. The PET does not provide a Cost Approach. The PET also does not provide a formal Sales Comparison Approach yet makes reference to a 2017 sale for a former Nordstrom store in Dulles Town Center Mall (in Virginia) that sold with 7 acres of land. That sale is given no weight at this hearing. The PET's submitted evidence seeks a value reduction to $5,531,806 [from the Income Approach], but later in testimony the PET revises her opinion and states she would be happy with the prior 2018 assessment of$7,553,796. [Note: The subject's just value increase by 6.4% ($483,653) from 2018 to 2019.] The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon NNN rent of$6.50/ SF, 6.54% vacancy, 8.0%/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 7.58% (6.58%+1.00% 2019-00545 Page 3 of 6 millage rate). The PET concludes a value of$5,531,806 (before any COS deduction). The PET refers to her roster of 11 nationwide rents of comparable department stores provided by Korpacz Realty Advisors (apparently for a different store he was appraising for Nordstrom). She gave weight to the Santa Monica, CA Nortstrom store (121,665 SF) with a rent of$6.16/SF + $0.16 CAM. The PET's Wall Street Journal article is typical of many similar articles presented for retail properties during the 2019 tax cycle at VAB hearings. Essentially, there have been many different brands closing stores, downsizing space requirements, and others going out of business. E-commerce is normally cited as one of the major problems. Interestingly enough, while many stores nationwide are downsizing or closing, the PET indicates that the subject store (77,295 SF) is small for Nordstrom. She indicates their desired store size is closer to 150,000 SF, but there is nowhere for them to go in the local market. The PET did not provide historical sales (or sales/SF information for the subject store (or the subject's mall) to help prove how the trend is going for the subject, yet that would have been good information to know. Verbally, the PET did indicate their biggest sales drop was 27% from 2016 to 2017, and since then it has been about 5% per year. [Actual data would have been good to provide.] The PET also uses `Viewpoint 2019' data for cap rate, rental rate, and vacancy rate estimates for malls in the Eastern region of the US in her Income Approach. The Viewpoint data source is based upon regional data, and the PAO [Mr. Redding] argues that it is often difficult or inappropriate to view the Collier/Naples demographic characteristics in the same manner as other parts of Florida (or in the region). He states it is usually better to pull data from other high-income areas of Florida if it is necessary to gather data from outside the Collier market. The PET verbally discusses a September 2019 sale of a Nordstrom 124,000 SF store in Wellington (Palm Beach County) to its original developer for $19.32/SF. That sale is not timely for consideration at this hearing, other than for possible trending. Finally, the PET makes some arguments about the fact that the subject's parking is not on site. All the subject's parking is part of the mall property, which is separately assessed and includes parking garage areas, as well as surface (normal) paved parking. There appears to be merit to this last argument, as will be discussed below in my ruling. RULING: 1.The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$8,037,449, which equates to $103.98/ SF of adjusted building area, or more importantly $143.31/SF of the total land area. I reviewed all 7 of the PAO's improved sales to determine what they sold for "per SF of land area". The indicators (in order), are $49.74, $35.56, $42.37, $58.70, $35.40, $30.90, & $16.40, respectively. Again, the subject's assessment per SF of land is $143.31, which is 3.73 times greater than the $38.44/SF average from the 7 sales. 2.The only timely Florida 'mall department store' sale provided in evidence was the PAO's Sale #6 of the Dillard's in Sarasota for $103.83/SF of building area. Coincidentally, the subject's just value contested is also very close at $103.98/SF of building area. However, the Dillard's included the necessary parking land, while the subject's parking is NOT included. What appears to be taking place here (as the PET 2019-00545 Page 4 of 6 basically implied) is that the PAO is `double dipping' in the assessment process by charging the subject for parking it DOES NOT have, and then charging for it again to the (non-subject) mall. [NOTE: The same think could possibly be happening with the Sak's 5th Avenue occupant, which has its own folio for its building pad, but apparently lacks any of its own parking.] 3. The FAR (floor-to-area ratio) is the reciprocal of the LTB (land-to-building) ratio. Based upon the PAO's 7 sales, the average FAR is 21.6%, which means the land under the building and all associated parking constitute 4.63 times the building area. The subject has a building area of 77,295 SF X 4.63 LTB = 357,847 SF of land area needed. Given the subject already has 56,086 SF of land, it needs 301,761 SF more of land area. The PAO already has a 'land assessment' associated with the subject of$33.25/SF being charged to the subject's building pad. 4. It is noted there is a 3-story parking garage in close proximity to the subject that is connected by an elevated walkway. From the aerial photograph provided in the PAO's evidence, it appears that would be the closest parking area available to the subject, yet possibly some patrons may park in surface spaces farther away. Regardless, roughly 33% of the subject's land associated with parking comes from the adjacent garage, because the garage has 3 stories. The land under that garage is already being charged (i.e. assessed) to the mall, yet it is (arguably) for the main benefit of the subject. Therefore, 33.3% X the land assessment rate of$33.25 = $10.97/SF X the 301,761 SF of land still associated with the subject's FAR = $3,311,075 that should be deducted from the PAO's just value because it is basically already being charged (assessed) to the mall. Thus, $8,037,449 — $3,311,075 = $4,716,374. 5. The PET's Income Approach requested a value of$5,531,806. If a 15% COS adjustment is then applied, a figure of$4,700,000 (rounded) results, or $60.81/SF of building area. That figure is extremely close to the figure immediately above of $4,716,374 that basically `backed into' a reasonable assessment. 6. $4,700,000 equates to $60.81/SF of the subject's building area. It appears to make sense that the subject's assessment WITHOUT sufficient land area should be less than PAO's Dillard store mall sale WITH LAND FOR PARKING of$103.83. 7. The analysis of malls can be tricky due to a variety of circumstances in a fickle retail market being forced to deal with e-commerce sales. There have been many articles written on the subject of malls and the gaining consumer acceptance of internet-driven sales, as opposed to `brick & mortar' shopping. While the Collier market is different from many other markets in Florida (especially SW Florida), various malls still do struggle as old anchors go out of business and some get demolished. Physically, the subject lacks on-site parking. The PAO already assesses the mall for parking areas that serve the subject. While the PAO does have a limited amount of 'free standing retail' big box rental data on pages 55 & 59 of his evidence, mall data is a slightly different 'data set' that is more unique within the retail sector. While a great deal of the PET's data is not localized information, it has some merit for the property type involved. While there were limitations on the data available to me to make this ruling, the evidence presented does suggest that the PAO is charging twice for the subject's parking areas, even though the PAO may not realize it. Physically the subject sits on a 'pad' without parking. The 2019-00545 Page 5 of 6 same can apparently be true for Sak's in this same mall. All of the subject's parking areas are outside the subject's pad and already assessed in the mall's separate tax bill. While the PAO's Cost Approach may still have a high value for the structure, there likely is a great deal of `functional obsolescence' associated with the big box concept that is not being recognized. Again, this ruling is based upon the evidence in the record. The PAO may wish to do a more comprehensive analysis of any Collier mall properties, and likely have to consider mall data from other parts of Florida with similar economic buying power and demographics. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. There is sufficient evidence in the record to establish support for an alternate just value. The recommended just value is lowered to $4,700,000 (rounded). Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00545: 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. 2019-00545 Page 6 of 6 las; DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00547 Parcel ID 00388400005 Petitioner name TERRI PATTON, MAI Property 2001 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 368,640.00 368,640.00 368,640.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 324,403.00 324,403.00 324,403.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 324,403.00 324,403.00 324,403.00 *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) IZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 2019-00547 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00547: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 numbers. Three contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with one building which has 79 storage units and the remaining space is retail/warehouse space used as a U-Haul center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just value of($368,640 for petition # 2019-00547), a just value of ($298,379 for petition # 2019-00548) and a just value of($753,034 for petition # 2019-00549) for a total just value of$1,420,053. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. Total Just Value is $1,420,053 PAO described the property as a one-story self-storage facility (79 units) and retail/ warehouse space. The building has an area of 12,198-sf. The land size is 53,456-sf or 1.23 acres. The building was built in 1962 and 1974. The properties are located at 2001 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00547 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 62 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the legal description for all parcels, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the property record cards. The subject property is located in the Commercial Mixed-Use Development in the Gateway Triangle; this district is intended to revitalize the commercial and residential development, promote urban design with human scale, pedestrian-oriented interconnected projects. 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 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood in close proximity to the subject. PAO indicated there is a lot of development in the neighborhood. The land sales occurred from June 2016 to June 2018. The land sales range in size from 35,500-sf to 137,673-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits ranges from $14.91 to $56.17/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.27/sf and the median is $22.12/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 53,453-sf or $1,229,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $388,156 (PAO indicated a large building depreciation was applied), impact fees at $262,292, and the land value is estimated at $1,229,419 for a total cost of$1,880,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of various retail properties in close proximity of the subject. The sales occurred from May 2015 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 2,400-sf to 27,146-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 8,465-sf to 120,000-sf with a land to building ratio 2019-00547 Page 3 of 8 ranging from 15% to 30%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 22.8%. The buildings were built from 1966 to 2003. The sales range from $77.73 to $229.68/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$155.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$164.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $155.00/sf of building area including land or $1,891,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/ sf. Self-storage facility rents, in a Naples survey, provided by PAO indicates a range of $9.87 to $17.97/sf with an average of$13.26/sf. PAO used a rent of$15.00/sf for the retail space and the self-storage space for a gross rent of$182,970. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 has a mean of 1.93%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $9,149. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 13.69%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $52,146. The net operating income (NOI) is $121,675. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with ab mean of 6.91%. Cap rates from retail Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.70% for 4Q 2018. Self-storage facilities have a national average cap rate of 9.86%; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.14% to 6.57% with an average of 5.95%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.8% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. 2019-00547 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of$121,675 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$1,521,000 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 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 2019-00547 Page 5 of 8 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 or actual 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 54-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: $1,420,053. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $368,640 for petition# 2017-00547 PET was not present, SM presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 9-page report which consisted of a cover letter, letter from U-Haul appointing an agent to represent them for the VAB, floor plan and size of storage units and retail space with asking rents, facility utilization summary report, profit and loss statement, Realty Rates survey for all types of self-storage, dated 45h Q 2018 indicating cap rates, Income Approach worksheet. PET included a one-page email indicating they would not be present at the hearing and request the evidence be heard in their absence. PEI's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET estimated the value of the property by the Income Approach only. PET does not provide comparable rents, only the asking rents at the subject for the self-storage facility. For the self-storage area, PET used 6,245-sf and applied a rate of$18.92/sf for storage income of$118,132. The warehouse space, or retail space is 5,953-sf at a rent of$8.50/sf for an income of$50,601. Total gross income is estimated at $170,333. 2019-00547 Page 6 of 8 PET estimated a vacancy at 15% (no supporting evidence) or $25,550. Operating expenses were estimated at 38% of the effective gross income of$144,783 or $55,017. PET provides support for the cap rate from RealtyRates 4th Q survey, the cap rates range from 5.14% to 13.8%. PET used a cap rage of 8%. The NOI of$89,765 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$1,122,065. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET used the Income Approach only in estimating value. PAO indicated several land sales and redevelopment have occurred in the area and property values have been increasing. PAO developed all three approaches to value. PAO indicated PET's vacancy at 15% is high and PET's operating expense ratio at 35 % is high. PET was not present and no rebuttal evidence was submitted. PET estimated the value of the property by the Income Approach only. PET does not show support for rents and vacancy rate. PET used low rents, a high unsupported vacancy rate at 15% and unsupported expenses at 38% of effective gross income. The location of the subject has been undergoing a change over the past few years to a different highest and best use. There has been ample land sales and redevelopment in the area to support a higher and best use. PAO's improved sales in the neighborhood support the estimated 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 2019-00547: 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. 2019-00547 Page 7 of 8 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 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. 2019-00547 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 Ed VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00548 Parcel ID 77510120005 Petitioner name TERRI PATTON, MAI Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary I71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 298,379.00 298,379.00 298,379.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 268,510.00 268,510.00 268,510.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 268,510.00 268,510.00 268,510.00 *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) E1 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00548 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00548: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 numbers. Three contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with one building which has 79 storage units and the remaining space is retail/warehouse space used as a U-Haul center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just value of($368,640 for petition # 2019-00547), a just value of ($298,379 for petition # 2019-00548) and a just value of($753,034 for petition # 2019-00549) for a total just value of$1,420,053. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. Total Just Value is $1,420,053 PAO described the property as a one-story self-storage facility (79 units) and retail/ warehouse space. The building has an area of 12,198-sf. The land size is 53,456-sf or 1.23 acres. The building was built in 1962 and 1974. The properties are located at 2001 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00548 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 62 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the legal description for all parcels, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the property record cards. The subject property is located in the Commercial Mixed-Use Development in the Gateway Triangle; this district is intended to revitalize the commercial and residential development, promote urban design with human scale, pedestrian-oriented interconnected projects. 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 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood in close proximity to the subject. PAO indicated there is a lot of development in the neighborhood. The land sales occurred from June 2016 to June 2018. The land sales range in size from 35,500-sf to 137,673-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits ranges from $14.91 to $56.17/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.27/sf and the median is $22.12/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 53,453-sf or $1,229,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $388,156 (PAO indicated a large building depreciation was applied), impact fees at $262,292, and the land value is estimated at $1,229,419 for a total cost of$1,880,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of various retail properties in close proximity of the subject. The sales occurred from May 2015 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 2,400-sf to 27,146-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 8,465-sf to 120,000-sf with a land to building ratio 2019-00548 Page 3 of 8 ranging from 15% to 30%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 22.8%. The buildings were built from 1966 to 2003. The sales range from $77.73 to $229.68/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$155.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$164.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $155.00/sf of building area including land or $1,891,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/ sf. Self-storage facility rents, in a Naples survey, provided by PAO indicates a range of $9.87 to $17.97/sf with an average of$13.26/sf. PAO used a rent of$15.00/sf for the retail space and the self-storage space for a gross rent of$182,970. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 has a mean of 1.93%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $9,149. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 13.69%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $52,146. The net operating income (NOI) is $121,675. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with ab mean of 6.91%. Cap rates from retail Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.70% for 4Q 2018. Self-storage facilities have a national average cap rate of 9.86%; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.14% to 6.57% with an average of 5.95%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.8% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. 2019-00548 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of$121,675 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$1,521,000 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 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 - 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 2019-00548 Page 5 of 8 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 or actual 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 54-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: $1,420,053. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $298,379 for petition# 2017-00548 PET was not present, SM presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 9-page report which consisted of a cover letter, letter from U-Haul appointing an agent to represent them for the VAB, floor plan and size of storage units and retail space with asking rents, facility utilization summary report, profit and loss statement, Realty Rates survey for all types of self-storage, dated 45h Q 2018 indicating cap rates, Income Approach worksheet. PET included a one-page email indicating they would not be present at the hearing and request the evidence be heard in their absence. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET estimated the value of the property by the Income Approach only. PET does not provide comparable rents, only the asking rents at the subject for the self-storage facility. For the self-storage area, PET used 6,245-sf and applied a rate of$18.92/sf for storage income of$118,132. The warehouse space, or retail space is 5,953-sf at a rent of$8.50/sf for an income of$50,601. Total gross income is estimated at $170,333. 2019-00548 Page 6 of 8 PET estimated a vacancy at 15% (no supporting evidence) or $25,550. Operating expenses were estimated at 38% of the effective gross income of$144,783 or $55,017. PET provides support for the cap rate from RealtyRates 4th Q survey, the cap rates range from 5.14% to 13.8%. PET used a cap rage of 8%. The NOI of$89,765 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$1,122,065. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET used the Income Approach only in estimating value. PAO indicated several land sales and redevelopment have occurred in the area and property values have been increasing. PAO developed all three approaches to value. PAO indicated PET's vacancy at 15% is high and PET's operating expense ratio at 35 % is high. PET was not present and no rebuttal evidence was submitted. PET estimated the value of the property by the Income Approach only. PET does not show support for rents and vacancy rate. PET used low rents, a high unsupported vacancy rate at 15% and unsupported expenses at 38% of effective gross income. The location of the subject has been undergoing a change over the past few years to a different highest and best use. There has been ample land sales and redevelopment in the area to support a higher and best use. PAO's improved sales in the neighborhood support the estimated 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 2019-00548: 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. 2019-00548 Page 7 of 8 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 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. 2019-00548 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00549 Parcel ID 77510160007 Petitioner name TERRI PATTON, MAI Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented by property appraiser After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 753,034.00 753,034.00 753,034.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 476,639.00 476,639.00 476,639.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 476,639.00 476,639.00 476,639.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00549 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00549: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 numbers. Three contiguous parcels were valued as one parcel. The property is improved with a one building which has 79 storage units and the remaining space is retail/warehouse space used as a U-Haul center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just value of($368,640 for petition # 2019-00547), a just value of ($298,379 for petition # 2019-00548) and a just value of($753,034 for petition # 2019-00549) for a total just value of$1,420,053. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. Total Just Value is $1,420,053. PAO described the property as a one-story self-storage facility (79 units) and retail/ warehouse space. The building has an area of 12,198-sf. The land size is 53,456-sf or 1.23 acres. The building was built in 1962 and 1974. The properties are located at 2001 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00549 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Redding presented a report containing 62 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the legal description for all parcels, photographs of the subject, photographs of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, and the property record cards. The subject property is located in the Commercial Mixed-Use Development in the Gateway Triangle; this district is intended to revitalize the commercial and residential development, promote urban design with human scale, pedestrian-oriented interconnected projects. 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 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood in close proximity to the subject. PAO indicated there is a lot of development in the neighborhood. The land sales occurred from June 2016 to June 2018. The land sales range in size from 35,500-sf to 137,673-sf; the adjusted sale price after extraction of impact fee credits ranges from $14.91 to $56.17/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.27/sf and the median is $22.12/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 53,453-sf or $1,229,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost with paving is estimated at $388,156 (PAO indicated a large building depreciation was applied), impact fees at $262,292, and the land value is estimated at $1,229,419 for a total cost of$1,880,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of various retail properties in close proximity of the subject. The sales occurred from May 2015 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 2,400-sf to 27,146-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 8,465-sf to 120,000-sf with a land to building ratio 2019-00549 Page 3 of 8 ranging from 15% to 30%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 22.8%. The buildings were built from 1966 to 2003. The sales range from $77.73 to $229.68/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of$155.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of$164.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $155.00/sf of building area including land or $1,891,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provides support (in the addenda) for retail market rents. PAO provided retail market surveys for rents in Collier County from Valbridge Property Advisors and CoStar who indicate asking rents in the range of$14.80 to $42.15/sf, with a mean of$23.85 and a median of$21.25/sf. PAO provided rents for free standing retail buildings from CoStar that range from $13.87 to $20.61/sf with a mean of$19.85/sf. Collier county's confidential rental report indicates a mean of$21.67/ sf. Self-storage facility rents, in a Naples survey, provided by PAO indicates a range of $9.87 to $17.97/sf with an average of$13.26/sf. PAO used a rent of$15.00/sf for the retail space and the self-storage space for a gross rent of$182,970. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and CoStar; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. Vacancies range from 3.66% to 9.60% with a mean of 6.63%. Information from confidential sources from PAO for vacancy rates for retail properties in Naples for the year 2018 has a mean of 1.93%. PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $9,149. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided for the year 2018 on various retail properties located in Collier County. The expense ratio (expenses to net income) has a mean of 19.64% CoStar provides a range from 0% to 33.33% with a mean of 13.69%. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% or $52,146. The net operating income (NOI) is $121,675. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, Realty Rates, Valbridge Property Advisors, REIS, Calkain Research, Commercial Property Executive, Net Lease Advisors and Co Star; reports from the market surveys are dated year end 2018 and 4th Q 2018. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 7.51% with ab mean of 6.91%. Cap rates from retail Waterhouse Cooper indicated a national cap rate for retail space at 6.70% for 4Q 2018. Self-storage facilities have a national average cap rate of 9.86%; CoStar reports cap rates in Naples in the range of 5.14% to 6.57% with an average of 5.95%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.8% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.00%. 2019-00549 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of$121,675 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$1,521,000 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 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. 193.011outlines 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 - 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 2019-00549 Page 5 of 8 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 or actual 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 54-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: $1,420,053. PAO's Just Value Conclusion: $753,034 for petition# 2017-00549 PET was not present, SM presented PET's evidence. PET's evidence was a 9-page report which consisted of a cover letter, letter from U-Haul appointing an agent to represent them for the VAB, floor plan and size of storage units and retail space with asking rents, facility utilization summary report, profit and loss statement, Realty Rates survey for all types of self-storage, dated 45h Q 2018 indicating cap rates, Income Approach worksheet. PET included a one-page email indicating they would not be present at the hearing and request the evidence be heard in their absence. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET estimated the value of the property by the Income Approach only. PET does not provide comparable rents, only the asking rents at the subject for the self-storage facility. For the self-storage area, PET used 6,245-sf and applied a rate of$18.92/sf for storage income of$118,132. The warehouse space, or retail space is 5,953-sf at a rent of$8.50/sf for an income of$50,601. Total gross income is estimated at $170,333. 2019-00549 Page 6 of 8 PET estimated a vacancy at 15% (no supporting evidence) or $25,550. Operating expenses were estimated at 38% of the effective gross income of$144,783 or $55,017. PET provides support for the cap rate from RealtyRates 4th Q survey, the cap rates range from 5.14% to 13.8%. PET used a cap rage of 8%. The NOI of$89,765 capitalizes at 8% indicates value of$1,122,065. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET used the Income Approach only in estimating value. PAO indicated several land sales and redevelopment have occurred in the area and property values have been increasing. PAO developed all three approaches to value. PAO indicated PET's vacancy at 15% is high and PET's operating expense ratio at 35 % is high. PET was not present and no rebuttal evidence was submitted. PET estimated the value of the property by the Income Approach only. PET does not show support for rents and vacancy rate. PET used low rents, a high unsupported vacancy rate at 15% and unsupported expenses at 38% of effective gross income. The location of the subject has been undergoing a change over the past few years to a different highest and best use. There has been ample land sales and redevelopment in the area to support a higher and best use. PAO's improved sales in the neighborhood support the estimated 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 2019-00549: 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. 2019-00549 Page 7 of 8 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 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. 2019-00549 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 1-1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00551 Parcel ID 22510010005 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC. Property 211 AUDUBON BLVD The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ID other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34110 Decision Summary ZI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 918,710.00 918,710.00 918,710.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 918,710.00 918,710.00 918,710.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 918,710.00 918,710.00 918,710.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/07/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiao ❑ 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 2019-00551 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00551: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $918,710. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 3,740-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. There is a partial second floor with a total area of 550-sf. The land size is .37 acres and has an adjusted front footage (FF) of 107.00 ft. The property was built in 1996 and renovated in 2018. The property is located in an upscale gated community with a golf course. The property sold in March 2018 for $825,000. PAO indicated the subject property was renovated in 2018 at a cost of$200,000. PAO indicated no building permits were issued for this renovation. The property is located at 211 Audubon Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Molina presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00551 Page 2 of 7 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 and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, photographs, aerial and location map of the subject as well as subject floor plan. 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 with floor sketch, MLS listing history for the subject with photographs of the interior and exterior of the subject. PAO included the permit information, and indicated no remodel permits were issued for the subject in the year 2018. PAO included the subject 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 May 2018 to October 2018. The four land sales are residual values, where the estimated value of the improvement was extracted from the value to arrive at the estimated land value, the subject community is fully built-out and no vacant land sales are available. The land sales range in size from 106.40 Front Foot (FF) to 130.4 FF; the sale prices range is $2,152 to $4,091. PAO reconciled at $3,200/FF or $342,500. The subject is assessed at $1,500/FF. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Total depreciated building cost is estimated at $758,210, the land value is estimated at $342,400 for a total cost of$1,100,610. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 improved sales in the same subdivision. The sales occurred from March 2018 to October 2018. The adjusted building size ranges from 4,538-sf to 5,581sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 106.4 FF to 130.4 FF. The buildings were built from 1996 to 2008. PAO made adjustments for lot size, building size, age and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $163.00 to $237/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $208.00/sf of building area including land or $1,055,000 rounded. PAO provided the MLS history for the renovated subject and indicated the property was listed for sale in September 2018 for $1,599,999, decreased on October 24, 2018 to 2019-00551 Page 3 of 7 $1,549,000 and further decreased on November 16, 2018 to $1 ,479,000 and remained at that listing price as of January 1, 2019. 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 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 2019-00551 Page 4 of 7 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 of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET's evidence was a 167-page report which consists of a cover letter, DR-493 form, letter from Phipps & Howell law firm to John Wood dated March 26, 2013 on just value and fair market value, subject property summary from Collier County web site, identification certificate by notary for owners of the subject, wire transfer instructions, affidavit of Iluka Family Properties LLC, closing statement addendum, closing statement for subject sale in March 2018, Appraisal of the subject dated 2/15/18 for the subject purchase of$825,000, the appraisal developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach, the appraisal contains photographs of the interior and exterior of the subject, aerials, location maps, flood map, zoning map, location map of comparable sales, photos and description of comparable sales and rental photos and insurance policy. PET included a sales chart of 3 sales for an indication of value for the subject as remodeled, with data sheets on each sale with photo and location map. PET included the house inspection report. 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 January 2018 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 3,144-sf to 5,104-sf; PET has the subject building size of 3,740-sf which is the under-air area. The land size for these sales ranges from 9,583-sf to 28,314- sf; the subject has 15,246-sf and PET used 16,117-sf. The buildings were built from 1994 to 1998. The adjusted sales range from $761,630 to $940,730. PET reconciled a value at 2019-00551 Page 5 of 7 $940,000 less 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of$799,000. PET estimated value: $799,000. 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 the current listing of the subject has an area of 4,693-sf under air, which indicates additional space was finished. PAO indicated no building permits were issued by the county for the renovations. PAO indicated PET's sales, as renovated, adjustments are on the low side. PET adjusted for renovations at $125,000, when the cost was $200,000, PET's adjustment for building size is on the low side. PAO indicated the subject was purchased in 2018 for $825,000 and renovated at a cost of$200,000 for a total of $1,025,000, which is higher than the current just value of$918,710. PET was not present at the hearing. SM reviewed the evidence. The subject was purchased and renovated at a cost that exceeds the current just value for the property. 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 2019-00551: 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 2019-00551 Page 6 of 7 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's value is understated. 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. 2019-00551 Page 7 of 7 1 iDECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC 0 EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 Rule 12D-16.002 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION F.A.C. Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00560 Parcel ID 67283960007 Petitioner name JOSHUA SIMON Property 115 CAJEPUT DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition IZ 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 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,147,033.00 1,147,033.00 1,147,033.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,147,033.00 1,147,033.00 1,147,033.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 50,500.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,147,033.00 1,147,033.00 1,096,533.00 *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 ✓❑ Homestead ❑Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment differenceQualifying improvement El Change of ownership or control 8 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 01/24/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/28/2020 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at E1 AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2019 ❑ 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 2019-00560 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Stephen T. Sardelli, who is the current owner of a life estate in the home located at 115 Cajeput Drive, Naples, Florida. Petitioner is appealing a denial of a homestead exemption for 2019. Although Petitioner indicated he would not attend the hearing in his petition, he was represented by his attorney, Joshua Simon, at the hearing. The Property Appraiser's Office was represented by its attorney, Christopher Woolsley, Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. Ms.Ybaceta and Ms. Earle remained under oath from an earlier hearing and both attorneys were sworn in. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) had its evidence package consisting of 38 pages admitted without objection as PAO's Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner had his evidence consisting of 58 pages admitted without objection as P.'s Composite Ex. 1. Petitioner's evidence consisted primarily of legal argument with supporting authority that as of January 1, 2019, Stephen Sardelli had beneficial and legal title to the property by application of s. 732.4015(1), Fla. Stat., and Article X, s. 4(c), of the Florida Constitution. (P. Ex. 1--Memorandum of Law). The subject property was purchased by Lorie A. Thalheimer, a single woman, and the deed recorded on April 24, 1989. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 9). Ms. Thalheimer applied for and received a homestead exemption in 1990 and enjoyed an exemption until her death on June 11, 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 23). The Petitioner and Ms. Thalheimer were married on May 12, 1990. (PAO Ex. 1, pp.12-13). On November 27, 2017, Ms. Thalheimer, now Mrs. Sardelli, transferred the property to herself as trustee of the Lorie A. Sardelli Revocable Trust u/d/t [sic] dated November 13, 2017. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 14-15). Petitioner and Mrs. Sardelli had a child, Nikki Sardelli, who was the named beneficiary of the trust and the successor trustee in the event of Lorie Sardelli's death. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 24-28; p. 34) Petitioner's name did not appear on the deed to the subject property until after Mrs. Sardelli died (Ybaceta), when the successor trustee of the Lorie Sardelli Revocable Trust, Nikki Sardelli, transferred a life estate to Petitioner by quitclaim deed on July 8, 2019. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 34-35). After receiving notice of Lorie Sardelli's death, the PAO sent Petitioner a notice that the exemption was being removed as a result of the death of the homeowner. (Ybaceta) A template of this letter was provided in PAO's evidence package. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 18). On February 5, 2019, Petitioner applied for a reinstatement of the homestead exemption claiming that he became a permanent resident and occupied the subject home on January 8, 2013. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 22) The application also cited proof that he made the subject property his permanent residence, such as his Florida driver's license and vehicle registration and the address of his IRS return. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 22) The application remained pending for many months while the PAO reviewed documents provided to it by Petitioner's attorney (Ybaceta) and was not formally denied until September 13, 2019. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 38) Petitioner has not raised any objection to the timing of the disapproval of the application. The denial states as grounds that the Petitioner did not have legal or beneficial title to the property as of January 1, 2019. This is a valid denial under s. 196.193(5)(b), Fla. Stat. 2019-00560 Page 2 of 4 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 or beneficial title in equity 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. . .." The PAO argues that because Petitioner was neither a record title holder nor a beneficiary of the trust, he had no legal or beneficial title to the property. However, the constitutional and statutory restriction against the alienation of homestead property provided in Article X, S. 4(c), Fla. Const., and s. 732.401(1), Fla. Stat., protected Petitioner from any attempts to disinherit him from the homestead and proscribed the wife's attempts to devise the property through the trust to her daughter. See Aronson v. Aronson, 81 So. 3d 515, 518-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). As Petitioner's attorney correctly points out, Mrs. Sardelli could not transfer her interest in the homestead property without Petitioner's consent. Section 732.4015, Fla. Stat., provides that "the homestead shall not be subject to devise if the owner is survived by a spouse or a minor child or minor children, except that the homestead may be devised to the owner's spouse if there are no minor child or children." The only way the Mrs. Sardelli could avoid her husband's homestead rights in the property would be to obtain a written and properly executed agreement or waiver from Petitioner. See s. 732.702, Fla. Stat. Consequently, the trust could not transfer the property to the stated beneficiary and this language in the trust was unenforceable. Petitioner owned a life estate in subject property at the moment of Mrs. Sardelli's' death, Aronson, at 519, which constitutes legal title under Florida law. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the Property Appraiser's denial of the homestead exemption for 2019 was wrong and that Petitioner did in fact qualify for a homestead exemption as of January 1, 2019. Although Petitioner did ultimately show that he retained an ownership interest in the property at the time of his wife's death by operation of law, he also must show that he otherwise qualifies for the exemption. In this instance, the only evidence that Petitioner made this property his permanent residence was hearsay. However, this evidence was not timely objected to by the PAO and was therefore admitted in the form of Mr. Simon's testimony and admission of the application. Both Simon's testimony that Petitioner resided on the property and the homestead application were credible and relevant evidence. While the parties did have a child and one could infer from the evidence that they were residing on the property as an intact family, one could infer the opposite from the express provisions of the trust carefully omitting Petitioner as both successor trustee and beneficiary and leaving the 2019-00560 Page 3 of 4 home to the daughter. After carefully weighing the totality of the credible and relevant evidence, the Special Magistrate concludes that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he owns legal title to the property and permanently resided there as of January 1, 2019 and is therefore qualified for the exemption. As a final matter, Petitioner raises in his Memorandum of Law the issue of transfer of the Save Our Homes savings that accrued on the subject property from 1990 until Mrs. Sardelli's death and argues that the PAO was wrong in removing the savings in 2019. While Petitioner is correct that there is no change of ownership under s. 193.155(3), Fla. Stat., that is not the end of the inquiry. The Florida Supreme Court has held that it isn't enough to qualify for the exemption in order to obtain the SOH savings. One must also make application for the homestead in accordance with the law. Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277, 286 (Fla. 2004). There was no evidence presented that Petitioner had ever applied for a portion of the homestead exemption. Rather, all the evidence clearly showed that Mrs. Sardelli, in her own right, applied for and retained the homestead exemption. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in this regard and the greater weight of all credible and relevant evidence showed that Petitioner was not entitled to the SOH savings. Therefore, the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be granted as to the homestead exemption and denied as to the transfer of the Save Our Homes savings on the property. 2019-00560 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DRRo85 V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00570 Parcel ID 82597000081 Petitioner name DD PARTNERSHIP OF NAPLES LLC Property 6615 WILLOW PARK DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary 121 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 602,017.00 602,017.00 602,017.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 267,094.00 267,094.00 267,094.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 267,094.00 267,094.00 267,094.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/07/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00570 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00570: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative or agent for the owner of the property, Mr. Grant Goebel from Deangelis Diamond. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $602,017. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO did not indicate the type of property or the address of the subject property. The Petition to VAB Request for Hearing included in the evidence package, indicates the property as vacant lot and acreage. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. No evidence was admitted into record. 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". PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach, the Income Approach and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. 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 $602,017. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence to be presented and heard at the hearing. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 2019-00570 Page 2 of 3 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00570: 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. 2019-00570 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00572 Parcel ID 82597000146 Petitioner name DD PARTNERSHIP OF NAPLES LLC Property 6635 WILLOW PARK DR The petitioner is: 1 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary El Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,709,040.00 2,709,040.00 2,709,040.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,057,430.00 2,057,430.00 2,057,430.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,057,430.00 2,057,430.00 2,057,430.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/07/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/08/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00572 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00572: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was a representative or agent for the owner of the property, Mr. Grant Goebel from Deangelis Diamond. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,709,040. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO did not indicate the type of property or the address of the subject property. The Petition to VAB Request for Hearing included in the evidence package, indicates the property as commercial. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. No evidence was admitted into record. 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". PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach, the Income Approach and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. 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 $2,709,040. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence to be presented and heard at the hearing. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00572: 2019-00572 Page 2 of 3 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. 2019-00572 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00599 Parcel ID 57389640008 Petitioner name JEFFERY JACQUE DYWAN TRUST Property 336 MARQUESAS CT The petitioner is: I71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address C] other, explain: MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 Decision Summary 1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 931,885.00 931,885.00 931,885.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 931,885.00 931,885.00 931,885.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 881,885.00 881,885.00 881,885.00 *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) j Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ 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 , 2019-00599 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00599: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Liz Molina, Dennis Staruch and Jeep Quinby and the Petitioner Mr. and Mrs. Dywan. The POA provided evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. PAO and petitioner were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of$931,885.00. PAO described the property which is a single family home. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Molina reiterated the 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2019 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 sales in the community. The petitioner's evidence consisted of a GLA inconsistencies as well as assessed building values of other properties in the neighborhood and how they relate to the subject property. In addition, the petitioner was not in agreement with Mass Appraisal Process and how values were estimated in the county. This however, is not considered relevant to arriving at market value. Mr. Quinby agreed at the hearing to revisit the home and verify GLA and make any necessary corrections for the record. 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. 2019-00599 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 54- 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. 2019-00599 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00599: 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$931,885.00 is presumed correct. 2019-00599 Pagc 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDACollier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00600 Parcel ID 57935080009 Petitioner name DONALD BENNETT Property 509 TIGERTAIL CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Wl taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 El other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Rule 12D-9.0255(10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 3,425,292.00 3,157,349.00 3,157,349.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,425,292.00 3,157,349.00 3,157,349.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,425,292.00 3,157,349.00 3,157,349.00 *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) [✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00600 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00600: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Don Bennett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 3-story single-family home built in 2008. The subject's address is 509 Tigertail Court, Marco Island, Florida. The base (air conditioned) building area is 2,620 SF. The adjusted building area is 6,400 SF situated upon a site of 11,000 SF. The subject 100 front feet (FF) on the water, with an expansive waterfront view. The home has a 2-car garage and an open swimming pool. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in January 19, 2018 for $2,500,000, but that was a distressed sale according to the PAO. The contested just value is 126.3% of the prior sale that took place almost 11 and a half months prior to the assessment date. The seller had been charged with various criminal charges; thus, apparently there was duress associated with this sale for the price paid. The subject also had another prior sale for $2.49M in 2011 with substantial appreciation to follow. JUST VALUE CONTESTED & EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: Prior to the hearing, the PAO had lowered the subject's just value from $3,425,292 to $3,157,349. It is noted that the 2019 just value increased 9.7% from the 2018 amount of$2,878,603. Unless stated otherwise in this ruling, the evidence is considered material, relevant, and credible, unless stated otherwise. Evidence (if any) submitted at the hearing will be identified. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$3,157,349, or $493.34/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, subject aerial photograph, subject tax roll sketch, subject location map, subject ground photographs, Cost Approach summary, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, comparables sales photographs and sketches, & the subject's property record card. The PAO also provides a vacant lot listing adjacent to the subject property. It was listed on the assessment date for $2.35M, and subsequently closed in 3/2019 for $2.25M (as a vacant lot, just $250K less than what the subject just sold for with a 3-story structure in place). PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & 2019-00600 Page 2 of 4 credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $100.00 FF X 20,200 SF X 0.89 = $1,777,600. The land value estimate was based upon the 4 residential land sale indicators. Impact fees were already inherent in those lot sales, given they were previously improved with homes, but the structures had been demolished. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,749,349) & site improvements/ paving at $40,000, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,566,949 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment of$3,157,349. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 4 improved home sales that range in price (before any adjustments) from $2.12M to $3.475M. The 4 sales have fully adjusted $/SF indicators that range from $562-$618 per adjusted SF. The PAO concludes $589/SF X 6,400 adjusted SF = $3,770,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: Prior to the hearing, the PET submitted many pages of evidence in Axia which included the subject's aerial, tax roll summary, PAO's sketch from their web site, the 2019 TRIM notice, the hearing notice, 192.042 F.S. DR-493, F.S. 193.011, various taxation articles, letter from the owner (dated 8/27/2019) stating his value placed on the FF&E, subject's warranty deed, listing/sales history, the subject's MLS listing, & numerous interior photographs. Other than the subject's sale, the PET fails to provide any other market sales evidence to refute the assessment. RULING: The PET relies only on the prior sale of the subject, yet it appears to be a tainted price that does not reflect current market value. The PAO provides ample land and improved sales evidence, along with a lot listing adjacent to the subject that also is compelling & supportive of the PAO's position. The PAO's evidence appears to portray a more reasonable and proper analysis of two approaches, which tend to support the PAO's just value contested at this hearing. The PET failed 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 2019-00600: 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 2019-00600 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 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. 2019-00600 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/5V 8517 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00607 Parcel ID 61789000166 Petitioner name RUSSELL BERNER Property 3585 GATEWAY LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Q Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,541,493.00 2,541,493.00 2,541,493.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,144,288.00 2,144,288.00 2,144,288.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,144,288.00 2,144,288.00 2,144,288.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/25/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiapj ❑ 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 2019-00607 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00607: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A),F.A.C) SM read the petitioner number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $2,541,493. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2019-00607 Page 2 of 2 DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 ! F.A.C. e Eff.01/17 Collier County FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00633 Parcel ID 35985280004 Petitioner name KOWALSKI, JAROSLAW Property 2570 TROPICANA BLVD The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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(14 F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 137,680.00 137,680.00 137,680.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 78,187.00 78,187.00 78,187.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 78,187.00 78,187.00 78,187.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00633 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00633: Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00633: The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C.]. 2019-00633 Page 2 of 2 DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R.01/17 Ed! VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. a Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00634 Parcel ID 35996160003 Petitioner name KOWALSKI, JAROSLAW Property 2560 45THSTSW The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 [' other, explain: Decision Summary LJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 114,390.00 114,390.00 114,390.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 25,539.00 25,539.00 25,539.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 25,539.00 25,539.00 25,539.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00634 Page 1 of 2 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00634: The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Rule 12D-9.021[8][b],F.A.C.]. 2019-00634 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 rill VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00635 Parcel ID 56807520009 Petitioner name RAYMOND KRASINSKI Property 1874 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' 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 421,659.00 421,659.00 421,659.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 355,876.00 355,876.00 355,876.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 355,876.00 355,876.00 355,876.00 *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) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/19/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00635 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00635: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, and Liz Molina. 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. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00635: 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. 2019-00635 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/17 s VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00636 Parcel ID 56807480000 Petitioner name RAYMOND KRASINSKI Property 1882 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 D other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ 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 498,356.00 498,356.00 498,356.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 435,039.00 435,039.00 435,039.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 435,039.00 435,039.00 435,039.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/19/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00636 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00636: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, and Liz Molina. 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. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00636: 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. 2019-00636 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. 21 These actions are a recommendation only, not final El 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 # 2019-00637 Parcel ID 66279440008 Petitioner name RAYMOND KRASINSKI Property 5912 VIA LUGANO The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ZI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 915,330.00 915,330.00 915,330.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 915,330.00 915,330.00 915,330.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 915,330.00 915,330.00 915,330.00 *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 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. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/05/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/aximi ❑ 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 2019-00637 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00637: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Donald R. Wegner. 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 $915,330. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2019-00637 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DRRo85 7 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. El These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00643 Parcel ID 00724640005 Petitioner name ABC LIQUORS INC Property 6806 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34114 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,179,699.00 1,179,699.00 1,179,699.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 527,178.00 527,178.00 527,178.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 527,178.00 527,178.00 527,178.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/25/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00643 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00643: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A),F.A.C) SM read the petitioner number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $1,179,699. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2019-00643 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00652 Parcel ID 00275800006 Petitioner name JERRY MYER Property 4227 ENTERPRISEAVE The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34104 Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 2,651,155.00 2,651,155.00 2,651,155.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,268,905.00 2,268,905.00 2,268,905.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,268,905.00 2,268,905.00 2,268,905.00 *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) 171 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/20/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/24/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00652 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00652: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (L&A Realty Company) was represented by Mr. Tom Spradlin. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a multi-tenant industrial warehouse at 100% occupancy & built in 1974. The subject has dock-high bays, as well as ground level bays. The subject's address is 4227 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 37,275 SF situated upon a site of 98,881 SF (i.e. 2.27 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in April 1998 for $980,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$2,651,155 or $71/SF of adjusted building area. It is noted the subject's just value increased by 27.4% ($569,472) from 2018 to 2019. 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, industrial study conclusions, SW Florida industrial cap rates, Collier industrial cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps, 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, PwC article about ENC Region Warehouse Market, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. The PAO submitted historical building permit information dating back to 2011. At the hearing, I also accepted additional back-up documentation (such as aerial photographs) related to the PAO's roster of land sales that were already in the record. It was not new evidence. (A copy of that information was also provided to the PET at the hearing.) PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $2,270,000, plus $252,690 of impact fees for a total of$2,522,690 (which is 95.2% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 12 commercial land sale indicators. #1 through #9 are 2019-00652 Page 2 of 4 `residual' indicators given less weight, but #10, #11, and #12 are actual land transactions that offer a tight range supporting the PAO's conclusion of$1M/acre. 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 $797,728 & site improvements/paving at $78,044, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $3,398,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 17 sales that closed during 2017 & 2018. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $60.46-$203.87/SF, with an average of$125.47/SF. The PAO concludes $90/SF X 37,275 SF = $3,355,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $10/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 25.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.2% to NOI of$265,584 for a value indication of$3,239,000, or $87/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly with the land value + impact fees justifying 95.2% of the total just value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 54 pages of the evidence via 2 submittals in Axia. The PET uses the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a subject tax roll summary sheet, permit history, tax roll sketch, Trim Notice, aerial photograph, 2018 balance sheet, 2018 profit and loss statement, subject's general ledger, subject's bank account statements, comparable improved sales data, and comparable land sales data. The PET seeks a value reduction to $1,811,992, which is his Income Approach conclusion. THE PET INCLUDES A SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, however, 19 of 20 sales provided are in Lee County. Only 1 sale is located in Collier County. Given the PAO has already proven an abundance of sales that could be considered in the subject's immediate area over the past 2 years, there is no need to consider Lee County sales. Therefore, I do not consider the PET's Sales Comparison Approach relevant or credible. THE PET INCLUDES AN INCOME APPROACH for the subject based upon historical 2018 revenue collected and historical expenses. The main problem with the PET's analysis is the inclusion of$79,122 of `capital expenditures' as a normal expense that is capitalized into perpetuity. By simply removing that expense and increasing the PET's NOI by that amount (and keeping the excessive loaded cap rate of 10.34373% the same), the value indicator would be $2,896,682, less 15% COS = $2,462,200. Some other minor expenses remain arguable (such as travel expense of$7,622.70) and may not be normal expenses. RULING: The PAO provides 3 approaches to value that are supportive of the just value. It is especially relevant that the land value + impact fees justify 95.2% of the just value being contested. The PET includes a large capital expenditure figure as a normal expense, which is improper. Other minor expenses may also be unwarranted for normal annual expenses. The PET also applies a very high loaded cap rate, which results in a lower value than appropriate. Basically, the PET is requesting a value $710,693 less than the land value + impact fees, which makes no sense. The PET failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established by the PAO at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended 2019-00652 Page 3 of 4 the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00652: 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. 2019-00652 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00655 Parcel ID 50940003722 Petitioner name SETH LUBIN Property 911 WHISKEY CREEK DR The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,300,292.00 1,300,292.00 1,300,292.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,260,855.00 1,260,855.00 1,260,855.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,260,855.00 1,260,855.00 1,260,855.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/18/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/21/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00655 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00655: The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, and Liz Molina. 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. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00655: 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. 2019-00655 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD RR-0485 7 Fa VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑/ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00657 Parcel ID 17011160003 Petitioner name DONALD BENNETT Property 1231 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 9,209,505.00 9,209,505.00 9,209,505.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,481,691.00 8,481,691.00 8,481,691.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,481,691.00 8,481,691.00 8,481,691.00 *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) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 2019-00657 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00657: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Don Bennett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 2-story single-family home built in 2003. The subject's address is 1231 Galleon Drive, Florida. The base (air conditioned) building area is 5,741 SF. The adjusted building area is 10,657 SF situated upon a site of 0.70 acres. The home has a 3-car garage, an open swimming pool, & an expansive view of Naples Bay. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in October 14, 2014 for $8,500,000. The contested just value is 108.3% of the prior sale that took place over 4 years prior to the assessment date. JUST VALUE CONTESTED & EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: The subject's contested just value is $9,209,505. It is noted that the 2019 just value increased 19.4% ($1,498,877) from the 2018 amount of$7,710,628. Unless stated otherwise in this ruling, the evidence is considered material, relevant, and credible, unless stated otherwise. Evidence (if any) submitted at the hearing will be identified. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide business card list of PAO officials, subject aerial photograph, subject tax roll sketch, subject location map, subject ground photographs, Cost Approach summary, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, comparables sales photographs and sketches, & the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $250/SF X 30,492 SF = $7,623,000. The land value estimate was based upon the 5 residential land sale indicators. Impact fees were already inherent in those lot sales, given they were previously improved with homes, but the structures had been demolished. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($3,355,041) & site improvements/ paving at $65,000, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$11,043,041 (before 2019-00657 Page 2 of 4 COS consideration). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a grid of 9 improved home sales The PAO concludes $974/SF X 10,657 adjusted SF = $10,380,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET failed to submit evidence timely into the record & the PAO refused to accept late evidence. I did accept verbal testimony from the PET. It appears there was (or may have been) roof damage from a prior hurricane in 2017. The owner never notified the PAO for a temporary adjustment, even though there were public notices to local residents to do so. There apparently had been a roof permit pulled by Campbell Roofing for $138K in May 2018, yet the PET indicates still no work has commenced. Apparently, the house is still habitable and has been since the alleged damage. The PET was advised to have the owner contact the PAO's office if there is still significant damage, particularly if the subject is uninhabitable. According to the owner no work is in progress. RULING: The PET failed to submit his evidence timely into the record & the PAO refused to accept it after the deadline. Apparently, the PET was trying to offset some of the significant (19.4%) assessment increase from 2019. The PAO did have evidence in the record with a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison Approach that do support the assessment with ample COS consideration allowed. While I did accept verbal testimony from the PET, he failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established in the record. Mr. Bennett also did not visit the subject to verify any of the conditions he was attesting to. Mr. Bennett was relying on comments from the owner. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00657: 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 2019-00657 Page 3 of 4 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. 2019-00657 Page 4 of 4 1 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Collier County. ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00681 Parcel ID 00418400700 Petitioner name ML LAND LLC Property 3713 MILANO LAKESCIR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34114 Decision Summary [7] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 42,066,111.00 42,066,111.00 42,066,111.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 42,066,111.00 42,066,111.00 42,066,111.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 42,066,111.00 42,066,111.00 42,066,111.00 *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 ❑ Homestead ❑Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference El Qualifying improvement ❑Change of ownership or control Other, specify Substantial Completion Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/26/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/02/2019 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at E AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2019 ❑ 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 2019-00681 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is ML Land, LLC, a single member company owned by David Torres. Petitioner owns a 10-acre parcel located on the corner of Collier Blvd. and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Naples, Florida. This property has been approved for multi-family residential dwellings and has been developed as Milano Lakes, an apartment community. Petition 681 challenges the PAO's determination that Buildings 7 and 8 were substantially complete and their ultimate assessment on the 2019 tax roll. Building 7 is addressed as 3740 Milano Lakes Circle and Building 8 is addressed as 3746 Milano Lakes Circle. Petitioner was represented by Mr. Torres. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Jenny Blaje, Director of Tax Roll Compliance, and Christopher Woolsley, attorney for PAO. All parties were sworn in. The PAO proffered two evidences packages. The first package consisting of 79 pages was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1. The second package is the Property Card information consisting of 14 pages and was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 2. Both of these packages were uploaded into Axia as a singular document of 93 pages and can be reviewed by opening that document. Petitioner did not participate in the evidence exchange and failed to provide his intended evidence in advance of the hearing as requested by PAO. Consequently, the PAO objected to the admission of a list of inspections that needed to performed after January 1, 2019. This list consisted of several pages. The objection was sustained on the basis that PAO did not have a reasonable time in which to review and consider this information. Petitioner, however, was permitted to testify about what inspections remained to be completed as of January 1, 2019. This apartment community called Milano Lakes consists of a total of eight residential buildings. (Blaje) The development also contains several separate garage buildings, a clubhouse and pool, and typical amenities. (PAO Ex. 1; Blaje) All buildings, excepting Buildings 7 and 8, were completed and Certificates of Occupancy issued in 2018. (Blaje; PAO Ex. 1, pp. 23-76). Buildings 7 and 8 had received their final 115 inspection from Collier County. The standard for substantial completion for the PAO is whether a building has received a complete or partial pass on a "115" final inspection. (Blaje) This type of inspection is a final review of all mechanical, electrical and structural systems in a building. The building is trimmed and all trades finaled at this stage of review. (Torres) These inspections were conducted before January 1, 2019 (Blaje), and there was no dispute on this point. Both buildings received these inspections in December, 2018 (PAO Ex. 1, p.78), but did not receive their Certificate of Occupancy (COs) until February 11 and February 14, 2019. (PAO Ex. 1, p.46, 48; P. Ex.l). There were a number of areas that remained to be approved at the time of the final building inspection, namely, erosion control, site drainage, landscape, parking spaces, elevators, fire suppression systems, and other life safety requirements. (Tones). Building 8 still required electrical, plumbing and HVAC final inspections to be complete. (Tones). Petitioner had to request both site and building inspections in order to obtain his final 2019-00681 Page 2 of 4 CO. (Tones) The Florida Building Code provides for issuance of a temporary Certificate of Occupancy if a specific and significant hardship is established. (PAO Ex. 1, p.77) Conclusions of Law: Section 192.042, Fla. Stat., provides that "[a]11 property shall be assessed according to its just value as follows: (1) Real property, on January 1 of each year. Improvements or portions not substantially completed on January 1 shall have no value placed thereon." The statute then goes on to define "substantially completed" as meaning the "improvement or some self-sufficient unit within it can be used for the purposes for which it was constructed." As the Florida courts have noted, this determination is often a difficult one. See Markham v. Kauffman, 284 So. 2d 416, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). What is clear in the case law is that a building need not be 100% finished in order to be assessed. Markham. A building is "substantially complete" when it has reached the stage where it can be put to the use for which it was intended, even though some minor items might be required to be added." Sherwood Park, Ltd., Inc. v. Meeks, 234 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Petitioner argues that without a CO, the apartments in the building could not be occupied, which is the purpose for which these improvements are constructed. The PAO countered that a temporary CO could have been obtained under the Chapter 1, Section 111.3 of the Florida Building Code, which meant that the units could actually be occupied. (Blaje; PAO Ex. 1, p. 77). This evidence, although credible and relevant, was not persuasive given the number of requirements made by Section 111.3 which were not established at the hearing. That however did not resolve the issue, because actual occupancy or the legal right to occupy is not the one determinative factor. Colding v. Klansmeyer, 387 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Markham. Although the Markham court reminds us that "occupancy is the single most telling indication of substantial completion" and that a building is legally occupiable as soon as the CO has been issued, the Markham court still found the building substantially complete even though the COs had not been issued by January 1. Subsequent opinions state that "actual occupancy is not the appropriate test for substantial completion in every case." Mikos v. Two M. Development Corp., 546 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In the Mikos case the developer was constructing a 24-unit condominium building. Although the units assessed as substantially complete did not have COs due to the fact that the interiors were left unfinished until the units were under contract, the court noted that "in the present day business world, there may be several stages between the beginning of construction and the time of occupancy during which the improvement is substantially complete for the purpose for which the taxpayer constructed it." In that particular case, the court found that the taxpayer had completed construction of the 2019-00681 Page 3 of 4 assessed units to the point at which it could market them for a present or future financial gain, which was the purpose for which they were constructed. As a result it upheld the assessment as valid. What is not entirely clear from the evidence is whether Petitioner intends to use the complex as income generating property or intends to sell it once complete. Either way it is a business enterprise. All credible and relevant evidence showed the purpose for which these two buildings were constructed to be rental apartments. Naturally, a tenant must be able to occupy the unit, but there was no evidence to show that the units, at this stage, could not be marketed and rental agreements entered into at this time. The overall weight of the credible and relevant evidence showed that absent some site-related inspections and fire and safety inspections, these units were ready for occupancy. As the Markham and Mikos cases show, the fact that the unit could not be legally occupied as of January 1 does not mandate the conclusion that the unit is not substantially complete. In addition, the statutory language about "self-sufficient units" shows that it is the completeness of the unit, where it stands alone in serving its purpose, that will be considered, not necessarily the surrounding property. In this case, what remained to be done by Petitioner was to call for inspections and thereafter the issuance of COs. Many of these inspections pertained to site-related matters. Otherwise these individual apartment units were occupiable. Like the instant matter, many items remained to be inspected in the Mikos case, most importantly the elevators, before the CO would issue. The inspections, however, were not considered substantial work. The Mikos court noted that although not inspected, the elevators were "operable" and overruled the trial court's finding that this lack of inspection, among other things, rendered the property incomplete. Petitioner had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's determination of substantial completion was wrong. While it was undisputed that the units in Buildings 7 and 8 could not be "legally" occupied without a temporary or final certificate of occupancy as of January 1, 2019, this is not required, as the buildings did not need to be 100% complete in order to be assessed. Even if that were the standard, the construction effort within the individual units was physically complete by January 1. Careful consideration of the overall weight of all credible and relevant evidence showed that these two buildings were substantially complete under s. 192.042, Fla. Stat. Petitioner failed to meet its burden in this case, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2019-00681 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. s Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00683 Parcel ID 17860120003 Petitioner name KANTER, BRIAN M & DIANNA L Property 450 PALMCIR W The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 3,406,363.00 3,406,363.00 3,406,363.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,406,363.00 3,406,363.00 3,406,363.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,406,363.00 3,406,363.00 3,406,363.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/01/2019 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axill ❑ 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 2019-00683 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00683: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was the owner of the property Mr. Brian Kanter. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,406,363. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,712-sf and an adjusted building size of 4,435-sf. The adjusted size of 4,435-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. There is a separate one-story guest house with a base area of 504-sf and 568-sf adjusted. The land size is .45 acres or 19,602-sf. The property was built in 2001. The property sold in August 2018 for $2,975,000, or $671/sf of building area including land. The property is located at 450 Palm Circle W, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, Ms. Blaje presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. Ms. Blaje presented this report once, on the first petition heard for the day, and this report applies to all petitions heard 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 (2011 VAB Attorney), Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Florida Department of Revenue Tax Roll Approval Letter, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, ratio statistics for various locations on Collier County. 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 2019-00683 Page 2 of 8 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, Mr. Strauch presented a report containing 43 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definitions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, location map, photos and aerial of the subject and floor plan sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison to value. The Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contain photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card, as well as the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) history for the subject with interior photos of the subject. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. PAO presented, as rebuttal, 37 pages which consisted of the property record card for the subject property, the property record card, floor plan and aerial photo of each of PET's improved sales in PET's appraisal. PAO provided the property record card and aerial photo of 7 vacant lot sales in the immediate neighborhood of the subject. All the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO indicated the subject is currently listed for rent on the MLS at $17,000 to $38,000/ month depending on the months the property is being rented. PAO indicated an Income Approach was not developed. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 4 land sales in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are vacant land sales occurred from January 2018 to September 2018. The land sales range in size from 11,761.2-sf to 40,946.4-sf; the sale price range is $121.62 to $207.59/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $165/sf or $3,119,835. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $15,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $730,690, the land value is estimated at $3,119,835 for a total cost of $3,865,525. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2018 to December 2018. The sales range in building size from 3,839-sf to 7,078-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,405-sf to 25,264.8-sf. The buildings were built from 2001 to 2018. Adjustments were 2019-00683 Page 3 of 8 made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The sales are located in subject neighborhood with some sales being on a lake, similar to the subject. The adjusted sales range from $671.00 to $1,017.00/sf of building area including land. Most emphasis was placed on sale # 7, which is located on the sale lake as the subject, is similar in age being built in 2006, has a slightly larger lot and larger building area. The adjusted price/sf for this sale is $839.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $839/sf of building area or $3,721,000 rounded. PAO's just value conclusion: $3,406,363. PET's evidence consisted of a 43-page report, a 6-page and a 2-page report. PET provided 6-pages of comparative market analysis and included 72 sales of single-family dwellings that sold in the year 2017 and 2018, with a median sale price of$3,143,750 and an average price of$2,598,351; also, included in the 6-pages are 54 sales in the year 2018 with a median sale price of$3,240,000, a size of 3,798-sf that sold at $900.07/sf; the average price of these sales is $3,697,954, size of 3,762-sf that sold for $967.19/sf. PET provided a 2-page letter, PET indicated the just value of the subject was $2,530,000 last year (including homestead exemption) and increased to $3,406,363, an increase of 36%. PET indicated the increase in property values over the past year in Naples at 2.8%, with a list of comparable sold properties in subject neighborhood; PET further discussed the recent appraisal at $2,992,000 and provides a summary of the values and tax bill. PET's 43-page report contains a photo of the subject in the table of contents, a uniform residential appraisal report of the subject dated July 3, 2018. The appraisal contains the Sales Comparison and the Cost Approach, limiting conditions and assumptions, intended user and use of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definitions, scope of the appraisal, highest and best use, MLS history of subject, zoning, plat and aerial maps, floor plan of the building, interior and exterior photos of the subject, location map, of the sales with photos of the sales, appraiser's certification, license and insurance. PET presented, as rebuttal, a one-page summary of several land sales in the neighborhood. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. The appraisal presented in PET's package was the appraisal completed for purchase of the property in August 2018. Five improved sales and two listings in the neighborhood were presented. The sales occurred from July 2017 to June 2018. The sales range in building size from 3,698-sf to 5,182-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 11,326- sf to 16,988-sf. The buildings range in age from 9 to 24 years old, the subject is 18 years old. Adjustments were made to some of the sales as compared to the subject for view, some sales are not on a lake, building condition, room count, building area, carport/ garage, pool/spa, fireplace/elevator and guest house. No adjustment was made for the 2019-00683 Page 4 of 8 land size. The adjusted sales range from $674.97 to $882.84/sf of building area of 4,097- sf including land and the listings range from $836.51 to $905.98/sf of building area. PET reconciled a value at $730.29/sf of building area including land or $2,992,000 rounded. PET's cost approach includes a land value of$2,000,000, site improvements are estimated at $25,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $967,663, for a total cost of$2,992,663. PET indicated the just value of the subject in 2018 was $2,530,000 and the current just value has increased 36%. PET indicated he was aware the previous owner had a homestead exemption, but property values had not increased substantially more in the 3% per year range. PET estimated value: $3,000,000. 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 2019-00683 Page 5 of 8 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 - 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 54-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. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the subject property had been listed at $3,679,000 in November 2017 and the price had been reduced to $3,485,000 and sold in August 2018 for $2,975,000. PAO contacted the previous owner of the subject and the owner indicated the subject property had been court ordered to be sold and that the current sale was a distressed sale and sold at below market value. PAO provided the property record card for each of PET's sales and indicated that some of the sales used in PET's appraisal were on dry lots and the adjustments made for location, building size and view were low, also, no adjustments were made to any of the sales for lot size, which vary substantially from the subject. PAO indicated PET's land value at $2,000,000 in the cost approach is low. PAO presented land sales in close proximity to the subject that ranged from $3M to 2019-00683 Page 6 of 8 $3.8M for the land only. PET indicated he was not aware the subject had been court ordered to be sold. PET indicated that PAO's land sales are all superior to the subject being closer to the beach and within walking distance to 5th Avenue. PET presented several land sales with a range of$126.75 to 165.80/sf of land area in the neighborhood that sold in 2018. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value. PAO indicated the sale of the property was court ordered and sold at below market value in August 2018. The appraisal presented by PET was considered weak as explained by PAO in rebuttal. 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 2019-00683: 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 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 2019-00683 Page 7 of 8 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. 2019-00683 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V b R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION DR -16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2019-00688 Parcel ID 66760013025 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 6270 NAPLESBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34109 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 5,566,640.00 5,566,640.00 5,566,640.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,566,640.00 5,566,640.00 5,566,640.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,566,640.00 5,566,640.00 5,566,640.00 *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) O Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/05/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ 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 2019-00688 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00688: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner did attend the hearing by Ms. Katelyn Avello for Ryan. The PET did not submit any evidence prior to (or at) the hearing. The PAO established the presumption of correctness via mass appraisal techniques in accordance with their 54-page 'Level of Assessment & Equalization Support Data'by following the criteria set forth in FS 194.301. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00688: The Petitioner did attend the hearing but did not have any submitted evidence. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to review, 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 because the PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. 2019-00688 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00690 Parcel ID 60204200345 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/19/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/20/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axill ❑ 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 2019-00690 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00690: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mission Hills Station, LLC.) was represented by Ms. Katelyn Avello with Ryan. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: TP-691 is a Winn-Dixie anchored shopping center, known as `Mission Hills' built in 2005. The subject was 100% occupied on the assessment date. TP-690 is an outparcel (27,878 SF) to that center. Both petitions are being heard together during this hearing. The subject's address is 7550 Mission Hills Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 84,474 SF situated upon a combined site of 818,826 SF (i.e. 18.8 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in October 2016 for $17M. The contested (combined) just value equates to 80.2% of this recent purchase price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$13,960,483 or $165/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. The CoStar sale write-up of the subject's recent sale is also provided. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12 X 818,826 SF = $9,825,912, plus $1,570,878 of impact fees for a total of $11,396,790 (which is 81.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 13 commercial land sale indicators. While the PAO does use some `residual' indicators, greater weight is given to 2019-00690 Page 2 of 5 the actual land sales 2, 5, 7, 11, 12 & 13. It is noted that 2, 5, 7, & 12 are in the subject's general location. The land value appears reasonably well supported by those sales in close proximity. 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 $6,447,537 & site improvements/paving at $1,284,356, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$19,129,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. [Note: Because the subject's site is extremely large relative to the land sales available, even at a lower land value of$8.75/SF, the PAO's Cost Approach would have resulted in a value of$16.47M. The contested just value is 84.8% of that figure, which still would have easily justified the assessment.] In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 improved sales from Collier County. The first two sales are the same property that sold twice (once in 2016, then again in 2018). That property lacks a grocery anchor [but is next door to another phase that does have a grocery anchor]; thus, Sales #1 and #2 are not given any weight by me. The remaining 7 sales all have grocery anchors. Sale #9 is the 2016 sale of the subject, which is given most weight at $201.25/SF. Sales #3 - #9 have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$271. 15/SF, with an average of$208.23/SF for those 7 sales. The PAO concludes $205/SF X 84,474 SF = $17,317,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $15/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of $1,018,188 for a value indication of$12,669,000, or $150/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly with the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach. The subject's prior 2016 sale also justifies the assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 50 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim notices (for the 2 petitions), subject's aerial photographs, Income Approach Analysis, subject's 2018 income statement, subject's rent roll (as of 1/1/2019 indicating 100% occupancy), anchor lease comps, regional and national shopping center market data support, 'Peer Shopping Center Summary' exhibit (showing comparable rents/photos in 17 different centers), lease comp details, CoStar's 'SW Florida Retail Market Statistics' exhibit [as of year-end 2018], CBRE cap rate exhibit, RealtyRates.com rate exhibit, roster of shopping center sales (in multiple FL counties), PwC Valuation Issues article, Bulletin PTO 11-01, & Collier County's 2019 Form DR-493. The PET seeks a value reduction to $8,530,000. From the combined TRIM notices, the PET notes there was a 43.3% (i.e. $4,217,940) increase in the just value from 2018 to 2019. The PAO indicates the 2018 assessment for the shopping center portion (i.e. TP-691) had been lowered to some degree in 2018 because of some hurricane damage the property suffered.] While the PET does include a roster of shopping center sales in various Florida counties, there are only 3 sales from Collier County & the largest has 46,252 SF [with some incorrect price information-per the PAO]. That roster did include a Lee County sale of 2019-00690 Page 3 of 5 69,475 SF with a price indicator of$175.60/SF, which is supportive of the subject's assessment of$165.26/SF. Regardless, the PET does not really prepare a Sales Comparison Approach. She mainly showed a long roster of sales that tend to be inconclusive because they come from so many different areas of the State of Florida. That chart does provide cap rates on certain transactions, as well. The PET includes a pro-forma Income Approach for the subject based upon a weighted average revenue (PGI) of$17.10/SF. The PET applies different rental rates for the anchor, junior anchor (fitness center of 5,795 SF), restaurant/bar (3,602 SF), and the balance of local tenants (24,690 SF). The PET applies a vacancy factor of 5% to all tenant spaces, 32% expenses (i.e. $5.20/SF), and applies a loaded cap rate of 9. 139% to the NOI resulting in a value indication of$8,740,000 (after a 15% COS adjustment). It is noted the PET uses a rentable area of 85,078 SF, which his 604 more than the PAO uses throughout their analysis. This difference is relatively insignificant and lost in rounding. It was noted that the `actual' 2018 financial performance of the subject was hindered by significant hurricane damage. RULING: 1. The subject last sold in October 2016 for $17M. The contested (combined) just value equates to 80.2% of this recent purchase price. This is well within the reason, given the PAO could normally justify an assessment of 85% of the purchase price, plus allow for possible appreciation since the sale date. I give strong weight to the prior sale of the subject. 2.The PAO's assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU [as required by FS 193.011 (2)]. The market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined) equate to 81.6% of the total assessment contested for this 9- year old building that is only 14 years old; thus, it is reasonable to believe the improvements still add considerable value. 3. The PAO has applied the same land value rate of$12/SF to the subject's outparcel (TP-690). Normally, outparcels to grocery-anchored shopping centers have land values much grater than $12/SF; thus, the PAO is being conservative on that portion of the assessment. In reference to land value, it was noted that he subject's site is extremely large relative to the land sales available. Even at a lower land value of$8.75/SF [as opposed to $12/SF used by the PAO], the PAO's Cost Approach would have resulted in a value of$16.47M. The contested just value is 84.8% of that figure, which still would have easily justified the assessment.] 4. The PET's request for a value of $8.53M is less than the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. 5. The hurricane damages were corrected before the 1/1/2019 assessment date. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00690: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. 2019-00690 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. 2019-00690 Page 5 of 5 RI; DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00691 Parcel ID 60204200044 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 7550 MISSION HILLS DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 El other, explain: Decision Summary n Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 13,625,942.00 13,625,942.00 13,625,942.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 11,135,916.00 11,135,916.00 11,135,916.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 11,135,916.00 11,135,916.00 11,135,916.00 *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) 7I Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/19/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/20/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ 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 2019-00691 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00691: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Mission Hills Station, LLC.) was represented by Ms. Katelyn Avello with Ryan. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: TP-691 is a Winn-Dixie anchored shopping center, known as `Mission Hills' built in 2005. The subject was 100% occupied on the assessment date. TP-690 is an outparcel (27,878 SF) to that center. Both petitions are being heard together during this hearing. The subject's address is 7550 Mission Hills Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 84,474 SF situated upon a combined site of 818,826 SF (i.e. 18.8 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in October 2016 for $17M. The contested (combined) just value equates to 80.2% of this recent purchase price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment of$13,960,483 or $165/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes 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, copy of the prior deed, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs of the comparable improved sales, income supportive data, retail study conclusions, SW Florida retail cap rates, Collier retail cap rates/rents, CoStar lease comps (freestanding retail), 2018 Collier data from confidential sources, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, RERC 4th Quarter 2018 rates, and impact fee calculations. The CoStar sale write-up of the subject's recent sale is also provided. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $12 X 818,826 SF = $9,825,912, plus $1,570,878 of impact fees for a total of$11,396,790 (which is 81.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 13 commercial land sale indicators. While the PAO does use some `residual' indicators, greater weight is given to 2019-00691 Page 2 of 5 the actual land sales 2, 5, 7, 11, 12 & 13. It is noted that 2, 5, 7, & 12 are in the subject's general location. The land value appears reasonably well supported by those sales in close proximity. 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 $6,447,537 & site improvements/paving at $1,284,356, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$19,129,000 (before COS consideration) to support the subject's assessment. [Note: Because the subject's site is extremely large relative to the land sales available, even at a lower land value of$8.75/SF, the PAO's Cost Approach would have resulted in a value of$16.47M. The contested just value is 84.8% of that figure, which still would have easily justified the assessment.] In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 improved sales from Collier County. The first two sales are the same property that sold twice (once in 2016, then again in 2018). That property lacks a grocery anchor [but is next door to another phase that does have a grocery anchor]; thus, Sales #1 and #2 are not given any weight by me. The remaining 7 sales all have grocery anchors. Sale #9 is the 2016 sale of the subject, which is given most weight at $201.25/SF. Sales #3 - #9 have $/SF indicators that range from $110.99-$271. 15/SF, with an average of$208.23/SF for those 7 sales. The PAO concludes $205/SF X 84,474 SF = $17,317,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $15/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of $1,018,188 for a value indication of$12,669,000, or $150/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly with the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach. The subject's prior 2016 sale also justifies the assessment. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 50 pages of the subject's evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject's tax roll summary sheet, subject's Trim notices (for the 2 petitions), subject's aerial photographs, Income Approach Analysis, subject's 2018 income statement, subject's rent roll (as of 1/1/2019 indicating 100% occupancy), anchor lease comps, regional and national shopping center market data support, 'Peer Shopping Center Summary' exhibit (showing comparable rents/photos in 17 different centers), lease comp details, CoStar's 'SW Florida Retail Market Statistics' exhibit [as of year-end 2018], CBRE cap rate exhibit, RealtyRates.com rate exhibit, roster of shopping center sales (in multiple FL counties), PwC Valuation Issues article, Bulletin PTO 11-01, & Collier County's 2019 Form DR-493. The PET seeks a value reduction to $8,530,000. From the combined TRIM notices, the PET notes there was a 43.3% (i.e. $4,217,940) increase in the just value from 2018 to 2019. The PAO indicates the 2018 assessment for the shopping center portion (i.e. TP-691) had been lowered to some degree in 2018 because of some hurricane damage the property suffered.] While the PET does include a roster of shopping center sales in various Florida counties, there are only 3 sales from Collier County & the largest has 46,252 SF [with some incorrect price information-per the PAO]. That roster did include a Lee County sale of 2019-00691 Page 3 of 5 69,475 SF with a price indicator of$175.60/SF, which is supportive of the subject's assessment of$165.26/SF. Regardless, the PET does not really prepare a Sales Comparison Approach. She mainly showed a long roster of sales that tend to be inconclusive because they come from so many different areas of the State of Florida. That chart does provide cap rates on certain transactions, as well. The PET includes a pro-forma Income Approach for the subject based upon a weighted average revenue (PGI) of$17.10/SF. The PET applies different rental rates for the anchor, junior anchor (fitness center of 5,795 SF), restaurant/bar (3,602 SF), and the balance of local tenants (24,690 SF). The PET applies a vacancy factor of 5% to all tenant spaces, 32% expenses (i.e. $5.20/SF), and applies a loaded cap rate of 9.139% to the NOI resulting in a value indication of$8,740,000 (after a 15% COS adjustment). It is noted the PET uses a rentable area of 85,078 SF, which his 604 more than the PAO uses throughout their analysis. This difference is relatively insignificant and lost in rounding. It was noted that the `actual' 2018 financial performance of the subject was hindered by significant hurricane damage. RULING: 1. The subject last sold in October 2016 for $17M. The contested (combined) just value equates to 80.2% of this recent purchase price. This is well within the reason, given the PAO could normally justify an assessment of 85% of the purchase price, plus allow for possible appreciation since the sale date. I give strong weight to the prior sale of the subject. 2.The PAO's assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU [as required by FS 193.011 (2)]. The market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined) equate to 81.6% of the total assessment contested for this 9- year old building that is only 14 years old; thus, it is reasonable to believe the improvements still add considerable value. 3. The PAO has applied the same land value rate of$12/SF to the subject's outparcel (TP-690). Normally, outparcels to grocery-anchored shopping centers have land values much grater than $12/SF; thus, the PAO is being conservative on that portion of the assessment. In reference to land value, it was noted that he subject's site is extremely large relative to the land sales available. Even at a lower land value of$8.75/SF [as opposed to $12/SF used by the PAO], the PAO's Cost Approach would have resulted in a value of$16.47M. The contested just value is 84.8% of that figure, which still would have easily justified the assessment.] 4. The PET's request for a value of$8.53M is less than the PAO's estimate of land value + impact fees. 5. The hurricane damages were corrected before the 1/1/2019 assessment date. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00691: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. 2019-00691 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. 2019-00691 Page 5 of 5 ral DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R. 01/17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00692 Parcel ID 66270200001 Petitioner name FLP 800 LLC Property 800 LAUREL OAKDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34108 other, explain: Decision Summary 17I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 9,816,886.00 9,816,886.00 9,816,886.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,619,546.00 8,619,546.00 8,619,546.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,619,546.00 8,619,546.00 8,619,546.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ 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 , 2019-00692 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00692: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $9,816,886. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00692: 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. 2019-00692 Page 2 of 2 I DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA C0llier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00693 Parcel ID 66270200108 Petitioner name FLP 800 LLC Property The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ 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 1,018,624.00 1,018,624.00 1,018,624.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 780,179.00 780,179.00 780,179.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 780,179.00 780,179.00 780,179.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/13/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ 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 2019-00693 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00693: Present at Collier County offices is Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Clyde Quinby and Ms. Liz Molina. 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 $1,018,624. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00693: 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. 2019-00693 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00703 Parcel ID 17011240004 Petitioner name MICHAEL MONTERO Property 1251 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 El other, explain: Decision Summary IZ Denied your petition El Granted your petition ❑ 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 10,044,773.00 10,044,773.00 10,044,773.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,202,665.00 9,202,665.00 9,202,665.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,202,665.00 9,202,665.00 9,202,665.00 *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) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/30/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiau ❑ 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 2019-00703 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00703: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Chris Woolsey, Esq., Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Donald Ward (certified residential appraiser) & Mr. Michael Montero, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a single-family home built in 2005. The subject's address is 1251 Galleon Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 7,707 SF situated upon a site of 41,817.60 SF (i.e. .96 acres). The subject has an expansive view of Naples Bay with no fixed bridge access to the Gulf of Mexico. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in August 2014 for $10,400,000. The contested just value is 96.6% of the prior sale that took place almost four and a half years prior to the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach to value to support the subject's assessment of$10,044,773 or $1,662/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB 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 business card list of PAO officials, subject aerial photograph, subject tax roll sketch, subject location map, subject ground photographs, Cost Approach summary, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, comparables sales photographs and sketches, & the subject's property record card. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $250/SF X 41,817.60 SF = $10,454,400. Impact fees were already inherent in those lot sales, given they were previously improved with homes, but the structures had been demolished. The land value estimate was based upon the 5 residential land sale indicators. Most weight was given to Land Sale #5 (most similar in view & most similar in lot size @ $256.06/SF). Land Sale #5 is also 11 lots north of the subject & on the same side of the same street. Land Sale #2 (smaller at 25,598 SF) was supporting at $262.67/SF; however, its wider canal view is slightly inferior to the subject's view. In terms of gross dollars paid, #2 sold for $10,650,000, while Land Sale #5 sold for $11, 725,000. Thus, the subject's site area of 41,817.60 SF @ $10,450,400 does not appear unreasonable. The PAO added the 2019-00703 Page 2 of 5 depreciated value of the improvements ($2,015,794) & site improvements/paving at $20,000, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$12,490,194 to support the subject's assessment of$10,044,773. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 improved home sales that range in price (before any adjustments) from $6M to $$11.316M. The 9 sales have fully adjusted $/SF indicators that range from $1,217-$1,785 per adjusted SF. The PAO concludes $1,455/SF X 7,707 adjusted SF = $11,214,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Improved Sale #5 appears to be a home of extremely similar adjusted building size (7,716 SF), and it also is on the subject's street at the end of the cul-de-sac. It is significant because it has a very similar expansive view, but has a smaller lot of 27,007.20 SF. Sale #5 sold for $11,316,800, which is extremely similar to the PAO's conclusion via this approach of$11,214,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented in the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 104.08% of the PAO's total assessment, even though there is a fairly modern existing home constructed in 2005 that adds additional value. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: Prior to the hearing, the PET submitted 61 pages of evidence via 2 submittals in Axia. The PET submitted an appraisal (with an effective date of 1/1/02019prepared by Mr. Ward), which included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach. The PET did provide subject location map, aerial map, survey, flood map, plat map, building sketch, exterior/interior photographs, and comparable exterior photographs. The PET also presents a long roster of changes to land assessed values for homes on Galleon Drive. The PET seeks a value reduction to [corrected at the hearing from $8.2M to] $9,000,000. The PET's long roster of changes to land assessed values for homes on Galleon Drive shows the subject's assessment increased by $1,678,714 from 2018 to 2019. The PET failed to demonstrate the subject is being treated significantly differently than many other properties in its same class (land use). In fact, a substantial quantity of properties had assessments that went down, and a substantial amount (such as the subject) went up, as proven by the PET's roster of homes on Galleon Drive. Ms. Blaje notes that hurricane adjustments [that would not be known to the PET performing the submitted roster] also impacted some of the assessments. Therefore, the best evidence related to the subject's market/just value on the assessment date should come from a timely appraisal performed by a licensed appraiser, as discussed next. The PET's appraisal prepared by Mr. Ward includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of$10,629,826. Mr. Ward indicates he should have used true land sales in his Cost Approach; however, he used 6 land assessments as indicators for the market values for those respective sites. This is improper appraisal methodology, which invalidates Mr. Ward's entire Cost Approach. However, it is worthy to note Mr. Ward's cost figures he concludes the depreciated value of the improvements + site work to be $2,429,826. That reinforces the reasonableness of the PAO's Cost Approach [which does value the land correctly], because the PAO's depreciated improvement + site work value is over $400K less at $2,015,794. The PET's Cost Approach is invalid and not worthy of 2019-00703 Page 3 of 5 further consideration. The PET includes a Sales Comparable Approach for the subject with a final value of $8.2M, which was corrected at the hearing to $9,000,000. The reason for the correction is due to an adjustment error Mr. Ward noted to his Sale #3, revised to a fully adjusted value indictor of$9,127,600. It is noted that Mr. Ward makes +$1M view adjustments to all 3 of his improved sale comps. It begs the question as to why Mr. Ward would omit the inclusion of PAO's Sale #5, which closed for $11,316,800 on the same side of the subject's street & ALSO WITH AN EXPPANSIVE WATER VIEW. On a similar note, it also begs the question as to why Mr. Ward did not include the PAO's Land Sale #5 for $11,725,000, which is extremely similar in SF lot size and just 11 lots north of the subject with an expansive view of Naples Bay (similar to the subject's view). Given the PAO's lot sales demonstrate 'wide waterway' view differences much greater than the $1M adjustment applied by Mr. Ward, and given Mr. Ward appears to omit key data that should have been used in his appraisal, it gives the impression that Mr. Ward's appraisal demonstrates bias (an ethical violation of USPAP). Had Mr. Ward made the appropriate wide waterway view adjustment, it is evident his Sales Comparison Approach value would have also supported the PAO's assessment. These deficiencies of Mr. Ward's report invalidate his Sales Comparison Approach and entire appraisal. On a different note, Mr. Ward makes verbal representations regarding some of the subject's features and finishes [such as ceiling fans and carpeting in some rooms], which appear atypical of a home constructed in 2005. It is noted he makes a +$250,000 adjustment to all 3 comparables to adjust for this characteristic, which should be ample for those items. Mr. Ward does not make any adjustments for `functional utility', as that is where he could have accounted for any additional design features, particularly if incurable. That being said, $250,000 can correct a great deal of interior finishes, as well as have ample funds left over for some of the exterior elevation features that could have also been modernized more. While still an attractive home, the subject has far more of a `traditional' appearance, particularly with regard to its front elevation. Regardless, I consider Mr. Ward's report to be biased and invalid for further consideration. RULING: The PET's appraisal report by Mr. Ward contains two approaches that either demonstrate improper methodology or [worse] bias for the benefit of his client, as not including some relevant data is an act of omission that would not be done by most appraisers. Mr. Ward's appraisal report is the foundation of the PEI's case, but that report is considered invalid and not worthy of consideration for an ethical violation of USPAP. The fact that some of the PAO's change in mass appraisal methodology in this neighborhood resulted in a 20.1% overall assessment increase to the subject's assessment is irrelevant to this hearing. The PET failed to demonstrate the subject is being treated significantly differently than many other properties in its same class (land use). In fact, a substantial quantity of properties had assessments that went down, and a substantial amount (such as the subject) went up, as proven by the PET's roster of homes on Galleon Drive. The PAO's evidence appears to portray a more reasonable and proper analysis of two approaches, which tend to support the PAO's just value contested at this hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO's 2019-00703 Page 4 of 5 assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00703: 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. 2019-00703 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITIONR. 0 17 Rule 120-16.002 F.A.C. ria; Collier County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00704 Parcel ID 17011400006 Petitioner name MICHAEL C MONTERO Property 1333 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented byAfter Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 36,518,817.00 34,034,851.00 29,000,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 36,518,817.00 34,034,851.00 29,000,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 36,468,817.00 33,984,851.00 28,950,000.00 *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 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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/24/2020 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/28/2020 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/axial ❑ 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 2019-00704 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00704: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Chris Woolsey, Esq., Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Dennis Staruch. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Donald Ward (certified residential appraiser) & Mr. Michael Montero, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a custom 'high end' single- family home with a Mediterranean design built in 2017. The subject's address is 1333 Galleon Drive, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 23,758 SF situated upon a site of 86,249 SF (i.e. 1.98 acres). [Note: The air-conditioned area is 21,688 SF, which is also substantial. Per Mr. Ward, the subject has 4 kitchens, 4 elevators, a movie theater, and a large prayer room. The subject also has in indoor pool & an outdoor pool.] The subject has an expansive view of Naples Bay with no fixed bridge access to the Gulf of Mexico. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold on in September 2013 for $14,465,000. The home was later constructed & went on the tax rolls in 2017, as noted above. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted 2 traditional approaches to value to support the subject's assessment [revised by the PAO prior to the hearing] of $34,034,851 or $1,432.56/SF of adjusted building area. The subject's 2019 assessment increased by 14.8% (i.e. $5,034,851) from its 2018 assessment. As with all VAB 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 business card list of PAO officials, subject aerial photograph, subject tax roll sketch, subject location map, subject ground photographs, Cost Approach summary, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, comparables sales photographs and sketches, & the subject's property record card. The PAO also submitted the listing and listing history for their Listing #7 used in the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $17,249,760 or $200/SF for a total of$17,249,760 (which is 50.7% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 5 residential land sale indicators. Most weight was given to Land 2019-00704 Page 2 of 5 Sale #4 (most similar in view & the largest of the sales in terms of lot size @ $256.06/ SF). Land Sale #4 is also 15 lots north of the subject & on the same side of the same street. In terms of gross dollars paid, #4 sold for $11,725,000. Thus, the subject's site area of 86,248.80 SF @ $200/SF = $17,249,760 does not appear unreasonable. Also, the subject's prior sale (before the construction of the existing new home) was for a price of $14,465,000 back in September 2013 (i.e. more than 5 years prior to the 2019 assessment date). This equates to land appreciation at a compound annual rate of inflation approximating 3.4%, which does not appear to be unreasonable. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($19,959,047) & site improvements/ paving at $150,000, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$37,358,807 to support the subject's assessment of$34,034,851. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 6 sales & 1 active listing on the assessment date [that subsequently closed in 9/2019]. The 7 sales have $/ SF indicators that range from $1,239-$1,628/SF. The PAO concludes $1,463/SF X 23,758/SF of adjusted area = $34,758,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach, which is backed up by the prior sale of the subject (supporting the PAO's land value). There was a scarcity of extremely large homes that had closed recently, which was a problem common to both the PAO & the PET at this hearing. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: Prior to the hearing, the PET submitted 115 pages of evidence via 4 submittals in Axia. The PET submitted an appraisal (with an effective date of 1/1/02019 prepared by Mr. Ward), which included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach. The PET did provide subject location map, aerial map, survey, flood map, plat map, building sketch, exterior/interior photographs, and comparable exterior photographs. At the hearing, the PET also submitted 2 pages of rebuttal evidence based upon a differential of$580/SF figure applied to building SF differences between the subject and each comparable. The PET seeks a value reduction to $29,000,000, which is based heavily upon Mr. Ward's Sales Comparison Approach. It is noted the subject's 2018 just value was $29,367,626; thus, (for this 2019 VAB hearing) the PET is requesting a reduction below the prior 2018 assessment. The PET's appraisal prepared by Mr. Ward includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of$30,820,968. Mr. Ward indicates he should have used true land sales in his Cost Approach; however, he used 6 land assessments as indicators for the market values for those respective sites. This is improper appraisal methodology, which invalidates Mr. Ward's entire Cost Approach and makes it unworthy of further consideration. The PET includes a Sales Comparable Approach for the subject with a final value of $29,000,000. Mr. Ward uses 5 comparbles (5 closed sales and 1 property that was a current listing on the assessment date). Technically, Mr. Ward's Sale #4 [PAO's listing #7] did not close until 8/2019; however, it was a current listing for $29.9M on the assessment date. Since both the PAO & the PET do use this property, it will be given further discussion in my final ruling. Mr. Ward's Sale #5 closed in May 2019, well after the assessment date for $23.5M (with an indicated 43 days on the market); thus, it 2019-00704 Page 3 of 5 apparently was not a listing on the assessment date & not considered relevant evidence in this hearing. RULING: Neither party indicated that the subject is an `over-improvement' for the neighborhood; and neither party may any adjustments for functional obsolescence. Per the survey evidence provided in Mr. Ward's, the subject has a site area of 87,522SF; however, the PAO uses 86,248.80 SF (apparently based upon some lot factors applied). Regardless, the lot SF difference is considered immaterial and lost in rounding the final ruling of this hearing. Given the subject is an extremely large custom home situated on a very large lot, both the PAO & PET were hindered by good sales data recent enough for comparative purposes. While both use the 1832 Galleon property in their respective sales/listing grids, that property was in fact a listing on the assessment date for $39.9M, yet it does not have a direct Naples Bay view [but it still has a good view]. The problem with that property is that it still has less than 10,000 SF in adjusted building area than the subject. In fact, the problem with both Sales Comparison Approach presentations is that there were large differences in BOTH building area, site area and also view quality to all the comps. This created adjustment problems that were difficult to accurately make based upon the economic concept of `diminishing returns to scale'. In other words, the utility and value of the additional square feet of building [or even land] decreases as the amount of difference increases. Therefore, I give far less weight to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, and very limited weight to the PET's Sales Comparison Approach. [Note: It just so coincidentally happens that Mr. Ward's appraised value happens to agree with my ruling, possibly due to the 'rule of`compensating errors'.] This ruling is based upon what appears to be the best evidence in the record, and that happens to be the PAO's well-supported land value estimate of$17,249,760 [Mr. Ward stated on the record he agrees with], plus the historical building permit of$15M (which I escalate for inflation at 3%/year for 4 years to be $16.883M rounded). The total of those two figures is $34,132,760, less 15% COS = $29M (rounded). While one could argue entrepreneurial profit possibly could be warranted to the historical construction costs, it is noted that this is a very large home and built to suit the specific needs of this one owner. It is highly possible (if not probable) different buyers would not 'pay extra' for custom features of this one owner; thus, I do not deem entrepreneurial reward warranted in this case. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET and multiple pieces of evidence point to a more appropriate conclusion of$29M; thus, it is recommended the PAO's assessment be reduced to $29M. That figure happens to support the PET's 2-page rebuttal evidence that also happens to conclude a value of$29M, based heavily upon moderated building size adjustments to the PAO's sales at $580/SF. The $29M figure also coincidentally happens to match Mr. Ward's appraisal conclusion (without any additional COS consideration). Thus, the subject's assessment is reduced by $5,034,851 to a recommended value of$29M. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00704: 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, 2019-00704 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00704 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V R.01/17 = VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. FLORIDA Collier County Eff.01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. • These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2019-00705 Parcel ID 17012960008 Petitioner name ROGER N SIMONS Property 1442 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record [' taxpayer's agent address 111 other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ 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 6,510,081.00 6,510,081.00 5,000,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,510,081.00 6,510,081.00 5,000,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,460,081.00 6,460,081.00 4,950,000.00 *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 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/30/2019 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/05/2019 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 239-252-7240 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axil2 ❑ 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 2019-00705 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-00705: 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. & Mrs. Roger Simons (the owners). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 1-story single family home built in 1957, yet (due to renovations) the PAO gives it an effective age as if it were 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 31,798 SF. The subject has a canal view toward homes on the opposite side. 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. PRIOR 2018 VAB APPEAL OF THE SUBJECT: It is part of the PET's evidence and worthy to note that I heard the subject's 2018 VAB appeal and granted a reduction decision of$4.25M at that hearing. My decision was based heavily upon a.) a prior bank appraisal of$5.25M for the financing of the subject's acquisition (noted below), and b.) the closing price of$5M, less 15% COS = $4.25M. It is acknowledged that each assessment year stands on its own merits, but since the prior sale and prior VAB ruling are both fairly recent, it is worthy to mention these facts. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted two traditional approaches (Cost Approach & Sales Comparison Approach) to value to support the contested just value of $6,510,081. The PAO also provided an aerial photo, location map, ground level photos, building sketch, Cost Approach, land/improved sales map, land sale grid, improved sales grids (7 total sales), and back-up photos/sketches for the various improved sales. PAO's 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida's DOR. For 2019, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR's certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO's conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment `process' and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject's hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. Unless noted otherwise in this ruling, all submitted evidence is deemed relevant & credible to the subject's property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at 31,798.80 SF X $210/SF = $6,677,748. That land value is based upon 6 land sales during 2018. Those land sales provide a range in $/SF indicators from $191.17-$239.01. The PAO also considers site improvements of$15,000 and the depreciated value of the improvements of#404,711. 2019-00705 Page 2 of 5 The PAO concludes a final Cost Approach value indication of$7,097,459, which is supportive of the total just value of$6,510,081. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 7 improved sales. Sale #7 ($5.2M on a smaller lot & built in 1973) is the closest to the subject also does not have an expansive bay view. The PAO provides photos & sketch back-up sheets in evidence for each of the improved. 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 cover letter of explanation of various events, including discussions & topics related to the prior 2018 VAB hearing. The PET submits the 3/27/2017 appraisal (by Barbara Manganaro) of$5.25M used for acquisition financing. The PET also presents another appraisal (also with a $5.25M value) prepared by her with an effective date of 10/8/19. That second appraisal does not state that it was prepared specifically for a VAB hearing, as the appraiser should have known to use an effective date of 1/1/2019. However, it does contain 4 improved sale comps, but 3 of the 4 closed well after the 1/1/2019 assessment date. The 2nd appraisal does not have a Cost Approach. Because this 2nd appraisal has an effective date of 10/8/2019, I will consider it for trending purposes, which basically means that appraiser considers the local market to be flat, given she appraised it for the same exact amount of $5.25M on 3/27/2017 (i.e. two & a half years earlier). She (the appraiser) is consistent in her neighborhood description by indicating that neighborhood values are `stable'. The fee appraiser also states, "The subject appears to have been well maintained. The subject improvements are considered to be in good condition with no physical inadequacies noted other than normal wear." The fee appraiser does not make note of any hurricane damages. However, the PET does submit roofing and gutter replacement costs in excess of$94,000, based upon bids obtained in September and October of 2019. Given the hurricane hit in 2017, it would seem more logical to have bids closer to the time damages actually occurred. At the hearing, I accepted rebuttal information from the PET consisting of evidence/ photographs of various street scenes and views behind the PAO's sales presented. It does appear that many of the PAO's comps are superior, particularly with regard to their view quality. The PET also provides a copy of the subject's 6/2019 survey indicating a site area of 0.71 acres. The PET uses a site area of 0.73 acres, which is slightly higher. The PET does provide a 10/13/2019 letter from The Glendale Group of Southwest Florida discussing various costs associated with increasing the subject's elevation, repairing rip rap and replacing the dock. Because many [but perhaps not all] of the same sales used by both the PET & PAO had a similar need for fill and were not adjusted by the appraiser, I do not consider any additional deductions warranted for site conditions. The subject was purchased for $5M by the PET with those same site conditions. RULING: In reference to the PAO's improved sales, the PAO does not provide the subject's prior sale for $5.25M in April 2017 as a prior sale in his comparable sales grid. Granted, it did not close in 2018, but that does not necessarily exclude it from consideration, given PAO's Sale #7 for $5.2M also had an old home on it (built in '73 & 2019-00705 Page 3 of 5 the subject was built in '57) & Mr. Staruch stated the subject's home is older and most of the value is in the land. Thus, the same would be true of PET's sale #7 (sold for $5.2M) with a 1973 actual & effective age. In other words (by that line of reasoning) the subject's home size & #7's home size are not particularly relevant to their sales prices. I do not give PAO's Improved Sales #2 & #3 any weight, as both have expansive Naples Bay views. I do not give significance to any hurricane damages now claimed by the PET, because none were reported in the most recent appraisal in evidence & because the PET never reported those topics to the PAO soon after the hurricane. [Note: I do not believe damages to landscaping are covered.] I do not give consideration to any additional COS discount off the $5.25M appraisals (of two different dates) by the same appraiser. This is because PAO's sales 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7 indicate some market appreciation could have taken place. Conversely, the PET's fee appraiser presented [unadjusted] sales of$5.24M, $5.782, $5.2M, and $5.125M. Once again, the field appraiser concludes the same $5.25M (in 10/2019, well after the assessment date) as originally in 3/2017. Thus, there almost equal arguments for and against appreciation, due to conflicting sales in the immediate area. Additionally, the subject's purchase price is still recent enough to be considered, given ample market exposure of more than 400 days. Therefore, I recommended reducing the subject's just value to the PET's $5M purchase price, but without any COS [or any other] discount warranted. This ruling results in a reduction of $1,510,081 from the contested just value; however, it also reflects an increase of $750,000 above my prior 2018 VAB ruling. As stated earlier, each assessment year stands on its own data. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-00705: 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 2019-00705 Page 4 of 5 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. 2019-00705 Page 5 of 5