Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
VAB 2025 Session Final Meeting Full Agenda 03/30/2026 (w/Recommended Decision Details)
COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 2025 SESSION FINAL MEETING AGENDA March 30, 2026 @ 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 VAB Members and Alternates: Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman (BCC, District 3) Chris Hall, VAB Vice -Chairman (BCC, District 2) Erick Carter (Collier County School Board, District 4) Rebecca Earney (Homestead, Citizen Member) Jill Rosenfeld (Alternate Homestead, Citizen Member) Dan Barone (Business, Citizen Member) VAB Staff in Attendance: VAB Legal Counsel, Holly E. Cosby Clerk to VAB, Crystal K. Kinzel — Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk's Designee, Derek Johnssen — Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Affidavit of Publication, Introductions, Contact List Review, and Quorum Requirements (per Chapter 194.015, F.S.) 2. Agenda and Minutes A. Approval of today's agenda (motion needed) B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from August 18, 2025, VAB 2025 Session Organizational Meeting (motion needed) 3. General Business Discussion A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the Florida Legislature affecting VAB (informational) 1) Department of Revenue — Property Tax Oversight and Florida Legislative Session (2025) Proposed Bills (informational) Page 1 March 30, 2026 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 11. Set date for VAB 2026 Session Organizational Meeting: (2 dates proposed with room tentatively reserved): (motion needed) Motion for Monday, August 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Motion for Monday, August 17, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. 12. Adjourn Page 3 March 30, 2026 COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 2025 SESSION FINAL MEETING AGENDA March 30, 2026 @ 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 VAB Members and Alternates: Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman (BCC, District 3) Chris Hall, VAB Vice -Chairman (BCC, District 2) Erick Carter (Collier County School Board, District 4) Rebecca Earney (Homestead, Citizen Member) Jill Rosenfeld (Alternate Homestead, Citizen Member) Dan Barone (Business, Citizen Member) VAB Staff in Attendance: VAB Legal Counsel, Holly E. Cosby Clerk to VAB, Crystal K. Kinzel — Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk's Designee, Derek Johnssen — Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Affidavit of Publication, Introductions, Contact List Review, and Quorum Requirements (per Chapter 194.015, F.S.) 2. Agenda and Minutes A. Approval of today's agenda (motion needed) B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from August 18, 2025, VAB 2025 Session Organizational Meeting (motion needed) 3. General Business Discussion A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the Florida Legislature affecting VAB (informational) 1) Department of Revenue — Property Tax Oversight and Florida Legislative Session (2025) Proposed Bills (informational) Page 1 March 30, 2026 Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller - Crystal K. Kinzel Collier County, Florida 3315 Tamiami Trail East, Ste. 102 - Naples, FL 34112-5324 Phone: (239) 252-2646 Affidavit of Publication COLLIER COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Yani Fernandez, who on oath says that he or she is a Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, Value Adjustment Board (VAB) Session 2025 Final Meeting (03/30/26) was published on the publicly accessible website https:Hnotices.collierclerk.com as designated by Collier County, Florida on 03/04/2026 until 03/25/2026. Affiant further says that the website complies with all legal requirements for publication in chapter 50, Florida Statutes. XA=nt rinted ame) :SXncs nPfl before me this 03/25/2026 'Cr kal K.r lidel�k k of the Circuit Court & 'iA Qgmptroller (Deputy Clerk Signature) r f i`n P z. vz 5 zG (Deputy Clerk Printed Name) Date NOTICE OF MEETING VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (VAB) SESSION 2025 FINAL MEETING COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Notice is hereby given that the COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (VAB) will conduct its Final Meeting for the 2025 Tax Year on Monday, March 30, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. in the County Commission Boardroom, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida. In addition, the VAB will review and adopt Special Magistrate Recommendations, certify Real Property and Tangible Personal Property Tax Rolls for 2025, review current Legislative Bills affecting the VAB process, recap the process for 2025, hear public comment and discuss other related issues at the suggestion or request of the Chairman, Staff or Board members prior to or during the meeting. If a person decides to appeal a decision made by the VAB with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, a record of the proceeding will be needed for such purpose, and such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, to include the testimony and evidence upon which any such appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, please contact the Facilities Management Division at (239) 252-8380, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112. VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BURT SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK By: Jennifer Hansen, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Collier County VAB 2025 Session Contact Information (0313012026) Legal Counsel Attorney Holly E. Cosby, Esq 239-931-0006 vablawveraoutlook.com BCCRep. Chair Commissioner (District 3) Burt Saunders, Esq 239-252-8603 burt.saunders@collier.gov BCC Rep. Co -Chair Commissioner (District 2) Chris Hall 239-252-8602 chris.hall@collier.gov Alternates Commissioner (District 5) William McDaniel 239-252-8605 bill.mcdaniel@collier.gov Commissioner (District 4) Dan Kowal 239-252-8604 dan.kowal@collier.gov Commissioner (District 1) Rick LoCastro 239-252-8601 rick.locastro@collier.gov Collier County School Board Representative School Board Vice Chair (District 4) Eric Carter 239-377-0485 carteel@collierschools.com CCSB Alternates School Board Member (District 1) Jerry Rutherford 239-377-0485 ruthej@collierschools.com School Board Chair (District 2) Stephanie Lucarelli 239-377-0485 lucarsaa collierschools.com School Board Member (District 3) Kelly Mason 239-377-0485 mason co iersc oo s.com School Board Member (District 5) Tim Moshier 239-377-0485 moshieti6kollierschools.com CCSB Staff Director of Community Engagement Lisa Morse 239-377-0219 morsell (&collierschools.com Citizen Members Homestead Rebecca Eamey 608-633-5915 raeamev(c),email.com Alternate Homestead Jill Rosenfeld 201-540-9844 iillfrosenfeld(a.email.com Business Dan Barone 239-289-1744 dan(&baronecola.com_ VAB Special Magistrates Attorney Special Magistrate Ellen Chadwell 239-249-3560 ellen(a chadwelllaw.com Attorney Special Magistrate Joseph H. Davis 407-839-3725 joseph.davis@ hdlaw.com Commercial/Residential Appraiser Sp. Magistrate Lorraine Dube 239-566-8848 dube5757@yahoo.com Commercial/Residential Appraiser Sp. Magistrate Michael P. Jonas 239-777-3430 mpionas@gmail.com Commercial/Residential & Tangible Personal Property Appraiser Sp. Magistrate Steven L. Nystrom 813-963-3510 newstreamcom anies mail.com Residential Appraiser Sp. Magistrate Maxim Antonov 646-330-2637 maxappraiser(i�gmail.com Commercial/Residential Appraiser Sp. Magistrate Philicia Lloyd 917-804-3007 phil@lloydres.com Clerk to the VAB Clerk of the Circuit Courts and Comptroller Crystal Kinzel 239-252-6299 crvstal.kinzelna,collierclerk.com Director of Finance BMR, VAB Derek Johnsen 239-252-7863 derek.johnssen(&collierclerk.com COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 2025 SESSION FINAL MEETING AGENDA March 30, 2026 @ 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 VAB Members and Alternates: Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman (BCC, District 3) Chris Hall, VAB Vice -Chairman (BCC, District 2) Erick Carter (Collier County School Board, District 4) Rebecca Earney (Homestead, Citizen Member) Jill Rosenfeld (Alternate Homestead, Citizen Member) Dan Barone (Business, Citizen Member) VAB Staff in Attendance: VAB Legal Counsel, Holly E. Cosby Clerk to VAB, Crystal K. Kinzel — Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk's Designee, Derek Johnssen — Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Affidavit of Publication, Introductions, Contact List Review, and Quorum Requirements (per Chapter 194.015, F.S.) 2. Agenda and Minutes A. Approval of today's agenda (motion needed) B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from August 18, 2025, VAB 2025 Session Organizational Meeting (motion needed) 3. General Business Discussion A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the Florida Legislature affecting VAB (informational) 1) Department of Revenue — Property Tax Oversight and Florida Legislative Session (2025) Proposed Bills (informational) Page 1 March 30, 2026 COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 2025 SESSION FINAL MEETING AGENDA March 30, 2026 @ 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 VAB Members and Alternates: Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman (BCC, District 3) Chris Hall, VAB Vice -Chairman (BCC, District 2) Erick Carter (Collier County School Board, District 4) Rebecca Earney (Homestead, Citizen Member) Jill Rosenfeld (Alternate Homestead, Citizen Member) Dan Barone (Business, Citizen Member) VAB Staff in Attendance: VAB Legal Counsel, Holly E. Cosby Clerk to VAB, Crystal K. Kinzel — Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk's Designee, Derek Johnssen — Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Affidavit of Publication, Introductions, Contact List Review, and Quorum Requirements (per Chapter 194.015, F.S.) 2. Agenda and Minutes A. Approval of today's agenda (motion needed) B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from August 18, 2025, VAB 2025 Session Organizational Meeting (motion needed) 3. General Business Discussion A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the Florida Legislature affecting VAB (informational) 1) Department of Revenue — Property Tax Oversight and Florida Legislative Session (2025) Proposed Bills (informational) Page 1 March 30, 2026 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 11. Set date for VAB 2026 Session Organizational Meeting: (2 dates proposed with room tentatively reserved): (motion needed) Motion for Monday, August 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Motion for Monday, August 17, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. 12. Adjourn Page 3 March 30, 2026 COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 2025 SESSION FINAL MEETING AGENDA March 30, 2026 @ 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 VAB Members and Alternates: Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman (BCC, District 3) Chris Hall, VAB Vice -Chairman (BCC, District 2) Erick Carter (Collier County School Board, District 4) Rebecca Earney (Homestead, Citizen Member) Jill Rosenfeld (Alternate Homestead, Citizen Member) Dan Barone (Business, Citizen Member) VAB Staff in Attendance: VAB Legal Counsel, Holly E. Cosby Clerk to VAB, Crystal K. Kinzel — Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk's Designee, Derek Johnssen — Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Affidavit of Publication, Introductions, Contact List Review, and Quorum Requirements (per Chapter 194.015, F.S.) 2. Agenda and Minutes A. Approval of today's agenda (motion needed) B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from August 18, 2025, VAB 2025 Session Organizational Meeting (motion needed) 3. General Business Discussion A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the Florida Legislature affecting VAB (informational) 1) Department of Revenue — Property Tax Oversight and Florida Legislative Session (2025) Proposed Bills (informational) Page 1 March 30, 2026 August 18, 2025 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, August 18, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Value Adjustment Board, in and for the County of Collier, a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in B Government Complex, East Nap members present: CHAIRMAN: Chairman Burt Chris Hall, BCMWe this date at 9:30 the Florida, with the following BCC Member Erick Carter, Sch and Member Jill Rosenfeld, Ho tead Citizen Member Ron sin Citizen Member Rebecca Earne , estead Citizen Member COUNSEL TO THE BOARD Holly E. Cosby, Esq. Also present: Jennifer Blaje, Property Appraiser's Office Annabel Ybaceta, Property Appraiser's Office Derek Johnssen, Finance Director - Collier Clerk of Courts Marty Rustin, BMR/VAB Manager - Collier Clerk of Courts Page 1 August 18, 2025 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The meeting of the Value Adjustment Board, our organizational meeting, will please come to order. Would you please call the roll. MS. COSBY: I think we should -- if we could stand for the Pledge first. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: roll first, but just -- MS. COSBY: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: MS. COSBY: Okay, sure. 14 HOMESTEAD MEMBER R alternate homestead mema,., COMMISSIONER HALL: Okay. just going to call the Wake sure7%ave a quorum. Hi. INRosenfeld, Chris N here. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Saun SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER R: is Carter, School Board member. BUSINES1, citizen member. KEZESKE: Ron Kezeske, business �MHAIRMA7 RS: AZl right. So we do have a quorum. We'll please Stan the Pledge. Com 8Ple ner Hall, would you lead us in the Pledge. (Theof Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRM DERS: Good morning. If you'll lead us through the agenda. MS. COSBY: Absolutely. So we've gotten through No. 1, roll call. And by the way, I'm Holly Cosby, Value Adjustment Board counsel. We're at No. 2. I have established that we do have a quorum here in the room pursuant to Florida Statute 194.015. Also, I have Page 2 August 18, 2025 reviewed the affidavit of publication for this meeting. I find it sufficient to proceed. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then we'll move on to the Item No. 3 on the agenda. MS. COSBY: We have already done introductions during roll call. I do want to ask the Board if you would ease look at the contact information sheet just to make sur your contact information is correct. I mean, you're a so clearly we are finding you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. An7*here are any changes, then we'll present that to you. MS. COSBY: Absolutely. That would be great. Okay. Moving on, we 'Ap have -- we do not have C Kinzel here with us today, but we do have one -- two of her members of her staff with us. We have Mr. Derek Johnssen, o is Clerk's designee today, and we also have lead for VAB administVion, Marty Rustin, here with us. ko And then moving on to 3C, I do want to just reach out -- or speak to our appointed members, our citizen members, and confirm a few items on the -- just for compliance so that I can get that on the verbatim. Mr. Kezeske and Ms. nfeld, I want to make sure you are not members or employees of a taxing authority -- HOMESTE D MEMBER ROSENFELD: Correct. MS. COSB r the current VAB session. I have the neg e for both citizen members. Thank you. And then I want to make sure that I also reflect for the record -- and this would be a question for the entire board. Are any members present going to represent any other governmental entities or taxpayers in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes, meaning are any of you going to be representing anybody in Page 3 August 18, 2025 any VAB matters on the petitioner's side? COMMISSIONER HALL: Heaven's no. MS. COSBY: We have a negative from all board members. Thank you for that. Okay. Moving on to the Item No. 4. Is it okay, Commissioner Saunders, that I just proceed, or do you want hit it and then get me for -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No, d and proceed. I think that will be most sufficient. over. MS. COSBY: Okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't want tole over. &o, no. You're dMorized to take MS. COSBY: Okay ank you` Moving on to Item N 4, diiLus& chairperson. So on July 8th, 202 , appointed Co Value Adjust Further, th chair. That needs to VAB. So we follow LCounty Commission %Saunders to the oth of you are here. NCommissioner Saunders as VAB the Commission and no longer by And at this point I'm just looking to Commissioner Saunders -- and it oesn't need a vote, just an appointment. Who would you like to appoint as your Vice Chair? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Hall. MS. COSBY: Okay. Thank you. Moving on to Item No. 5, a motion is needed to approve today's agenda. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: So motion. COMMISSIONER HALL: Second. MS. COSBY: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? (No response.) August 18, 2025 MS. COSBY: Those in favor, signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Ay MS. COSBY: Those opposed? (No response.) MS. COSBY: Motion carries. Moving on to Item 6, recommendation rea ing, by Resolution 2025-01, the appoint t of myself for B counsel for the 2025 VAB year. And there -- ad for the record this is my first renewal of my fi It ontr e gone through the first three. This is year four. take u ough May 31 st, 2026, and there are no changes tCHAIRMAN SAUNA ' 1 sa support of that that she does an excellent job anTi 'llin� take over the meetings and make sure we get everything d e, right, so... M OSBY: Thank you. OL BOAR14,9�MB�C RTER: I couldn't agree more. _ CHAIRMAN S DS: Do you need a motion for that? MS. COSBY: Y sir. CHAI SA DERS: I'm make the motion to approve that. MS. COSBY: ank you. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Is there any discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 5 August 18, 2025 HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MS. COSBY: Thank you. I'm honored. Moving on to Item No. 7, we have special magistrate information. So 7A, recommendation to reaffirm by resolution 2025-02 the appointment of VAB s 'al i VAB tax year. I will ad v' r the re contract. Nothing has cha . All are r Magistrate Mario de la Guardia, but we do istrates for the 2025 se are also renewals of g except for ,special -- and he was a tangible prope agistrate, but w&p h� Steven Nystrom still on our ro or to bles. So we are still have full roster, and I will advise for reco that I have checked with their credentials. All do r com moti$P!! n tCHAIA SAURS : approve et�nt to serve, but we do need a right. Is there a motion to CONVWSIONER HALL: So moved. SCHOO OARD MEMBER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAAN UNDERS: We have a motion and a second. Seeing no discussi , all in favor, signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. August 18, 2025 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MS. COSBY: Okay. Thank you. Moving on to Item 8, approval/acceptance of the minutes to the VAB record for the minutes of the March 17th, 20251 VAB final meeting of 2024. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay ow we've all diligently studied those minutes. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBtd RTER: Every word. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS:f anyone ha corrections... (No response.) A. CHAIRMAN SA approval, signify by saying HOMESTEIW&MBE COMMISSIONER HALL: CHAIRMAI SCHOOL B BUSINESS ME1 CHAIRMAN SA UNDERS: E S: eeing�ne. All in favor of OS D:dye. e. R RTER: Aye. . Aye. opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANDERS: That passes unanimously. MS. COSBY: Moving on to Item No. 9, Department of Revenue training , my notes when I prepared for this agenda that the training wa t available, and then two days later it was. So I will advise now that the training is available. I can advise you that I have not taken the training yet because I have been organizing VABs sequentially, and then I was in a convention this weekend. So once I'm finishing organizing Collier, I intend to start the training. When it is done -- and I will complete it as soon as I can. Page 7 August 18, 2025 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do you think it would be advisable to have our Vice Chairman take the training as well? MS. COSBY: I think it's a proper hazing method, yes. COMMISSIONER HALL: All opposed? MS. COSBY: I will make sure that I do advise for the board -- for the record that me taking the you taking the training. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All rim MS. COSBY: So because I I do want to encourage all of you you ever have any questions abo 4 process, my email address on your So I did not point that out4ftLn we information. My new ininsz does stand for all of rtect. you 't have to. However, e it. A d if you -- but if Value Adjustment Board sisv is very simple. VAB lawyer, all `oR If you ever ything, lever operations, po s, questions, the training. I omp e it. L 100, so faLou b ' 11 a, magi s, we will sure holds g hearings here in ier Co t j&rmation has changed. rd, I'M about contact er@outlook.com. It atlook.com. 1013 procedure, to me. But I will take ear I got a 99 on the test out of e you as well that all special take the training prior to CHAIRMAN SAUN Thank you. We'll move on to No. 10. MS. COSBY: Yes,rsir. Number 10, attorney report, general business, VAB reference materials. will read these in sequence. We can go -- we'll go one by one. I'll advise whether this is informational or if we need a motion. 10A, general overview of Value Adjustment Board's role in the Florida property tax system, including a process for complaints and the newly adopted legislative changes that affect the VAB process. August 18, 2025 That document is something that is prepared by my office. It is a three -page document. It is actually entitled "Collier County Value Adjustment Board General Information, Florida's Property Tax System, Respective Roles Within the System, Taxpayers Opportunities to Participate in the System, and Property Taxpayer Rights." I think that's the one that I'm -- yes. And that has been updated to reflect the new laws that have been approved by the governor pursuant to House Bill 71 -- 7031, which is now also rules of Florida, Chapter 2025-208. If you have any questions -- is a good synod ''s of the VAB process. So if you want to read tha ee pages, that would be a great place to start. CHAIRMAN SAUNI4 11 rig Thank you. MS. COSBY: Moving to I would need a motion to adopt, by resolution, 20 5-03 tin adoption of internal operating procedures to supple apt 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. And before you take a vote, I want to make sure tha this in the record. Okay. N ALL: ere a way to blow that up just a little bit for Com ' on under . MS SBY: *11 a e that there are redline and clean versions p ed. With regar s to the evidence uploads, policies and procedur e up ed those to comply with law for evidence exchange chang the evidence exchange changes are as of September 1 st of th ear. Prior to September 1 st of this year, evidence exchanged was as follows: Petitioner provides their evidence to the Property Appraiser at least 15 days prior to the hearing, and they need to -- they, the petitioner, needs to request Property Appraiser's evidence in writing. And if that is done, then at least seven days prior to the hearing August 18, 2025 the Property Appraiser must then exchange their evidence back to the petitioner. That process is gone. The process now is 15 days prior to the hearing each must exchange evidence with the other. There's no chicken and egg, who comes first. They both just simultaneously, or whenever, they both have 15 days to provide evidence to the other There's no triggering event for one to happen before the other h s. That's very big, and that's something that I need to make sure I get in the record today, because otherwise, if I didn't, we'd have to have another organizational meeting for me to So that's the new evidence scheduling hearings prior to, let's sail had to then reschedule th(fe hearings exchange law. We haven't done that. till probably October, so we're in thl updated our locoolic' s and ced things like that to refle e ne it doesn't start until S that we MS. C( telephones redline ands that actually sure to tell you that. ae law. And if we had started Per 1 st, we would have unt for the new evidence knot scheduling hearings on4ka.t. But that --I `ence uploads and rward. Even though is get it going. Let's make sure EM Very good. ovin 4r rward with regards to the and procedures that you also have a an version, and it is updated regarding the law changes effect January 1 st of 2026; however, we already hold telephonic well. Let's go ahead and get those done as So what that is is the time to request an electronic hearing, because it can be Zoom or telephonic, whatever the Board pleases, whatever we can accommodate. At this time we're accommodating telephonic. We've had a -- we had it before. I think that they could request up to three days or seven days prior to the hearing. The law Page 10 August 18, 2025 says 10, so I needed to update that to 10. Previously, we did have some requirements. If you wanted to appear tele -- electronically, you had to either be ill or be a certain number of miles away. That's no longer allowable as of January 1 st. And I just say rip the Band-Aid off and move on, and let's get it going now. So I have updated our policies and procedures to remove those triggering events as well. It's just if they request it, they're permitted. There's also -- we did have a requirement ave a notary present for any remote parties to take an oath an R(A Lout an affidavit. That's a lot of chasing on the part of the administration to get all of that paperwork done. It can be don eff 'vely by agistrate, as a judge does during a r e hearin re the judge ks them to -- the person that's rem o to their e, give some qualifying identifying information and ssi eir re n to the parcel in this case. And so th t we're ing 's th agistrate will then administer the jus way do n a remote hearing. It's as effective. It t aw some o e extra burden on our adminis %hhl So os e -- ose are the changes that we've made to the telephonic policie d p dures. An en moving forward -- further from that, we are voiding the forms iring magistrates to consent or decline remote hearings because as o uary 1 st, they must consent anyway, and I don't think that any o istrates are opposed to holding electronic hearings. So were oving that form because it won't be -- it won't be valid or consistent with law as of January 1 st anyway. And then they are voiding two other forms, telephonic hearings sworn affidavit -- or one more. The sworn affidavit because there's no -- going to be no longer any requirement for a notary to administer an oath for remote parties. So it takes some pressure off Page 11 August 18, 2025 administration to chase parties for this extra form. Those are the updates to our local policies and procedures for 1 OB. I want to know before we pass this or ask for a motion, does the Board have any questions? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing no questions, I'll call for a motion. Is there a motion to approve resolution -- HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: So moved. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- 025-03? COMMISSIONER HALL: d. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUND S: SCHOOL BOARD ME R !11: ye. BUSINEJWEIBER K CHAIRM AUNDERS: opposed? (N nse.) im CH SDE at passes unanimously. COSB oving onto m C, IOC. We have a recom ation to designat yself, legal counsel, to determine good cause for late -filed petitions and rescheduled hearings. SCHOOL BOAV MEMBER CARTER: So motion. HOME STEA MBER ROSENFELD: Second. CHAIRMAN DERS: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All in favor, signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. Page 12 August 18, 2025 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MS. COSBY: Moving on to Item IOD. Recommendation to adopt 2025-04, which is a resolution for VAB petition as -- for an increase in filing fee of $50 per parcel and let qualify that. This was as a result of House Bill 7031, which becam orida Law 2025-208. Part of that law states that now VABs c arge up to $50 per petition -- per parcel, sorry, fill ees for . It does also state, though, that -- the petitions ability. So ybody looking to appeal their portability differe or transfer of the difference, those petitions remain at $15 per cel. CHAIRM SAUNDERS: Al ight. HOMES D M BER FELD: So it's per parcel as opposed to per - ay. M CO Y: el, b use sometimes there are mullre ns , so iS1 ME STE D M R R ENFELD : Right. MS. OSBY: It's -- for ose, as long as they're contiguous and similar or 1 enticalI it's $50, then five each. There's -- the program works out how to do that, but for -- for most petitions, it will be $50 per parcel. HOMESTEAMIEMBER ROSENFELD: Okay. MS. COSBY: And then it will be 15 for portability. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. You had explained just in a brief conversation before the meeting that the County Commission has been subsidizing the filing of those. There are a couple members that didn't hear that conversation. Page 13 August 18, 2025 MS. COSBY: Okay. I absolutely will go through that again. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Just real quickly. MS. COSBY: Yeah, absolutely. This is a good public policy discussion to have. So the VAB -- the filing fee for petitions is meant to, quote -unquote, "defray the costs of operatin e VAB." Fifteen dollars per petition doesn't do it. Fifty wo it, but whatever the filing fee does not cover, the Board of C Commission pays VAB operations at three -fifths, and the hoo and pays VAB operations at two -fifths. So that's why your boa i made up of 60 percent BOCC and BOCC citizen member and rcent School Board and School Board member because that is the -- t is how you -all cover the VAB operations costs. By charging more per petition, this less -- this will be -- there will be less that the VAB needs t your respective boards to cover VAB operatio So that's what I -- that's wh Id commending the increase, because then it will allo AB to be a little bit more self- sufficien s far as operating an venue. It won't 0 percent, but itvvi 1 make it less that we ask the respective boards to cover VAB operations. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Are there any questions or comments concerning this resolution? (No response.) CHAIRMA DERS: Seeing none, we need a motion to adopt -- HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: So moved. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- 2025 -- 2025-04, the petition for the fees. So we have a motion. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a second. All in favor, Page 14 August 18, 2025 signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Mum, CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All oppA (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passe animously. MS. COSBY: Wonderful. Thank you. I want to ask, before we move forward, VAB administration, have we had any petitions filed yet? CHAIRMAN SA RS: If you could use the ml*bphone. MR. RUSTIN: We'v ad very few at the old rate. MS. COSBY: How would the Board like VAB administration to treat petitions sled prior to today? Do you At VAB administration go back and ask those petitioners to make up the filing fee, or do ou want -- do you want it to start today at $50? HO oii EAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: I would vote to start toda HOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: I would start today. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah, I think that's fair, because they may not have filed if it was going to be a $50 fee. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Okay. MS. COSB ay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for swering that question. I apologize for putting you on the spot. I had that highlighted to take care of. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to 10E, Florida Department of Revenue forms DR-488p. These are the initial certifications of the Value Adjustment Board. I need approval. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So you just need a Page 15 August 18, 2025 motion to approve the form; is that -- MS. COSBY: Yes, and to allow the Chair to sign those. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. We need a motion, then, to -- HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: So moved. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- approve the signature. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CAR ER: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We h otion. We have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: e. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: 16* SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE:\e.CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: p (No respon .) CHAI SAUNDERS pa nanimously. MS. COS Moving on to IOF. We request approval to -- for the dest of VAB records in accordance with the general recor e e GSL -- GS 1-SL for the 2019 VAB year records. App tly there are three boxes that have been held for four years with no eals filed. CHA AN SAUNDERS: All right. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: So moved. SCHOOL MEMBER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN DERS: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. Page 16 August 18, 2025 BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MS. COSBY: All right. Moving on to IOG. I will read all of these items into the record. I will advise that they -- and when we're done, even though this says "informationa will ask the Board for a motion to adopt all of the reference m that I am reviewing with you. And I will advise for the record the e present in the room today, and they are also on the VAB -- the k's VAB website. And those reference materials ude rida Go ment in Sunshine Manual; Florida A inistra de 12D-9I Department of Revenue VAB forms inc l the -- there are a few -- the word is escaping me at the moment. t re s interim forms that have been release the Dep e ve -- provisional. There's the wor �'m to g fo . e w few provisional forms that the Department of R enue h sued. Those provisional forms are DR- R-486 86 ; PT101, PT902020. Those are h oom a 11!nd i ay. Those are provisional form notices of hear V petition forms. W o have Florida inistrative Code 12D-10; Florida Administr e Code 12D-51. 011 12D-51.002, 12D-51.003. We have the Uni Policies and Procedures Manual and other legal resources and re aterials issued by the Department of Revenue. We have information -- I realize I'm talking fast, and I'm sorry. Information for taxpayers regarding the Florida property tax system and the Value Adjustment Board process and a property brochure, and then we have Florida Statutes 119, 286, 192, 193, 194, 195, and 196. And I would respectfully ask the Board adopt all of those. Page 17 August 18, 2025 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. We need a motion to approve or adopt all of those documents. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENFELD: So moved. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER ROSENF L# Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aya SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Al (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That p 9 unanimously. MS. COSBY: Okay. Moving on to 1 (7W It is informational only. This was a VAB 2024 expense report for -- it says on the cover sheet 686 peti ' filed, but it's not. The correction of that is 593. We had 593 pets s filed during the 2024 VAB session, and then you hav py o d li� what the expense report look e. AIRMAN SAUNDERS: nd that's just an informational item? it MS. COSBY: Yes sir. es sir. Moving on to -- un ss anybody has any questions. (No respons MS. COSBY: ay. Moving on to Item 11, VAB dates of importance. TRIM notices mailed today, Property Appraiser's Office? MS. YBACETA: Tonight. MS. COSBY: Thank you. Awesome. That means that there will be -- 11 B, the deadline to file August 18, 2025 petitions for the Value Adjustment Board would be Friday, September 12th. Moving on to Item 11, magistrate hearings. They will commence in October. They will go through February or March. There will be more dates if needed based on filings. 11 D proposed final Value Adjustment Board meeting for the 2025 tax year. They do have the room reserved already. We've got either March 16th or the 27th of 2026. I can tell you I'm available for those dates. Do either of those pleas Board more than others? One is a Monday and one is a Fri arch 16th is a Monday; March 27th a Friday. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Mondays are better for me. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Me too. MS. COSBY: Mondays? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: *#eah. MS. COSBY: Okay. So we're looking at March 16th. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Monday will work for me as well. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: What time, 9:30? MS. COSBY: O e're doing 9:30, if that works for the Board. CHAIRMAN SA RS: Sure. All right. Do you want a motion t pprove that date . MS�OSBY: No. We've of it on the record. Thank you. g CHAI A SA DERS: All right. MS. COSB ing on -- thank you for asking, though. Moving on to m 12A, advise the Board of continued advertising method. We are fully online in compliance with Chapter 50 of the Florida Statutes. And I will tell you that that is due to Mr. Johnssen's recommendation. He worked with Clerk Kinzel. She also wanted to get that moving. It has saved the VAB a lot of cost, and it's working very well. Page 19 August 18, 2025 And Mr. Rustin also was a huge part of a very large collaborative effort to make sure that we could make that happen, and they worked really hard. So I just want to acknowledge them. They did ask me a few legal questions, but for the most part, it was a huge collaborative effort on their part to move in that direction, and it's working very well. Moving on to 12B, legislative update. #W, on your agenda it shows Department of Revenue Propert versight Bulletins 25-01 through 25-04, except that on Fri y, t Oth, at 2 p.m., the Department of Revenue not only fWed their training but also released 16 more -- no, 14 moreNetins, which I have here. I will go through them as qt . Just to give you an idea of what they're abou I he heavy ones that do affect the Board. So 25-01 addresses the ai e filing fee from $15 to 50 except for porta ' 'ty, which r ins 25-02 ad there's no m ire nt for petitioner to request for Prop Appraiser evi ce. The time frame for evidence exchange is the me both parties, 15 days prior to the h 'ng. AdQLcon fun 't ates if the Property Appraiser fails ovide e ce e peti oner, the hearing may be resche And so it's in ting, it doesn't require that the hearing be resche a ed if the petitioner doesn't exchange, but it does say if the Property Appraiser ails to exchange, then the hearing may be rescheduled. 25-03, assess t of citrus equipment unused due to citrus greening. That equipment must be valued at salvage. The application to the Property Appraiser for that was due August 1 st. 25-04, there are state funds for physically restrained -- constrained counties. It's $500,000. I don't believe that that applies to Collier County. But just in case it did, I will advise Page 20 August 18, 2025 that for a fiscally constrained county, for tax refunds for catastrophic events -- so when Ian affected a home and then the property owner applied for tax refunds, if they received a tax refund from the Tax Collector -- and this is a -- that was a fiscally constrained county, the county could apply to the Department of Revenue to receive some of those funds back. It's a total of 500,000 for however many fiscally constrained counties there are in the state of Florida, and they do have until October 1 st to apply for those funds, and there * Department of Revenue form for that. So just, again, advising that is part of the law. PT05 -- 25-05 addresses agricultural lands in a stla%r federal eradication program. 25-06 addresses calcu of refun f the overpayment of ad valorem taxes proceedings before clue 'ustment Board. So that's calculatioA for 4 1 ose re S. 11W 25-07 elonic earan e Adjustment Board so this addresses to onic hearings, d that's -- or any electronic hearingjgffijj�that i ua st. But we do hold them here in Collier County. W 25-08 addre dea e to file suit in Circuit Court post Value Adjustment Board decision , d that is now -- I think that's 30 days after the Property Appraiser recertifies the tax roll. 25-09, ad valorem taxation of leased flight simulation training devices. 25-10 address affordable housing property exemption, multifamily projects. And a lot of these are applied by the special magistrates during hearings. A lot of these laws will be applied by the special magistrates. 25-11 address affordable housing property exemption land leased from a housing finance authority from a non-profit. Page 21 August 18, 2025 25-12 addresses affordable housing exemption for properties on state-owned lands. 25-13 addresses exemption for affordable housing on governmental property. 25-14 addresses educational property exemption, Gold Seal Quality childcare facility. 25-15 addresses changes to home threshold for reassessments after misfc destruction. That one is effective June property square footage aLcalamity damage or 25-16 addresses transfers of homestead community property trust. 25-17, Value Adjustment Boalq of evidence procedures reed effec was what I read into the record st, we w evidence exchange d that ve to have an additional organizational meeting. And 25-18JIM& transm' al o Vla%Adjustment Board petition and notice of hearing fo ne uired exchange of evidence procedures, and that, actually, the VAB administration will need t*Ceil%, ow or whichever -- whichever petitions that you have alrea you need to send a new petition form, the new one that' provisional right now, to a petitioner to fill out and submit so that they ske the new evidence exchange information that is effective September. So we will eed to reach out to whomever has filed a petition and make sure thF ubmit a new petition on the new forum. That concludepresentation on 12B for the legislative updates. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let me see if there are any questions or comments. MS. COSBY: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, we'll move on to No. Page 22 August 18, 2025 C, 12C. MS. COSBY: Thank you for your time in listening to that. Item C, provide compliance review and address any outstanding matters on the record. I will try to do this as quickly as possible. I will advise for the record that the VAB is willing to consider any written complaint filed with respect to a spec magistrate by any party or citizen. I'll advise for the record that 1 procedures and forms of the Board and special magistrates are in compliance with Florida Statute 194 and Florida Administrative Code 12D-9. I will advise for the record that the VAB is in ompliance with Florida Statute 194 and 12D -- Florida Administrat ode 12D-9 at this time. I will advise for the record that cal pro res are ministerial in nature. Th not inc nt with gov ing statutes, case law, Attorne 1 opin' or rules of the Department. And then, fam, I will a 'se f ec that there are three items that cannot be completed ime, those three compliance items are that I have t n the training, and that's because it wasn't released until Friday, but I will get on it quickly. And I will advi ministration when I am done taking the training. I also take the e and make sure I know what I'm doing. IA *onally, all appointed special magistrates, we will ensure that they r 've the training and complete that before holding hearings here in Collier County. And finally, petition is filed in Collier County on a parcel that is locate ithin a municipality, "the City of," "the Town of," when we provide notices of hearing to the petitioner and the Property Appraiser for those hearings, we also must provide a notice of hearing to the CEO of that municipality. That hasn't been done because hearings haven't been set yet, but as soon as they are, those notices will go out. I check with administration. They provide me Page 23 August 18, 2025 those monthly reports showing that they've done that. At the end, I come back to the final meeting and I show you those monthly reports and provide that they've been done. But at this time, those are the three items that cannot be completed, and I just want to make sure -- advise the Board on the record of those things. conc Does the Board have any questions? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't s y questions erning Item 12C. MS COSBY• Wonderful CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: comment. Don't see any. A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBE usually have so many. CHAIRMAN SA 26th, for the County Commission comment op UP. that MS.'COSBY: public 1M be here on Tuesday, the M&w tf%you did keep public ugh Ake for anybody to step ER CARTER: To walk in? So is there anything else would just advise that even though we try to keep this f and typically we're under 30 minutes, for all the law changes that 've had to advise you -all of today, to get this done in 33 minutes is an acc ment. SCHOOL BO D MEMBER CARTER: It's impressive. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, you have a Board, and all of us have reviewed all of those rules -- MS. COSBY: Yes. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- and all of the statutes in preparation for today's meeting, so -- Page 24 August 18, 2025 MS. COSBY: You -all come in here ready, and I appreciate that. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: You really didn't need to go over it. We already knew everything. MS. COSBY: Yes. It's just a reminder and to get it all on the record. So I -- I'm grateful for all of your studying and reading in advance. Thank you. �# SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CAR Hours, we spent. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All r' there's nothing else, then, any other comments from the (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS. eing none, we adjourned. MS. COSBY: Thank you. LA Page 25 August 18, 2025 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:02 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUST T BOARD BURT SAP�DERS, VAB CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK 1% These as presented LA TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 26 COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 2025 SESSION FINAL MEETING AGENDA March 30, 2026 @ 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 VAB Members and Alternates: Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman (BCC, District 3) Chris Hall, VAB Vice -Chairman (BCC, District 2) Erick Carter (Collier County School Board, District 4) Rebecca Earney (Homestead, Citizen Member) Jill Rosenfeld (Alternate Homestead, Citizen Member) Dan Barone (Business, Citizen Member) VAB Staff in Attendance: VAB Legal Counsel, Holly E. Cosby Clerk to VAB, Crystal K. Kinzel — Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk's Designee, Derek Johnssen — Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Affidavit of Publication, Introductions, Contact List Review, and Quorum Requirements (per Chapter 194.015, F.S.) 2. Agenda and Minutes A. Approval of today's agenda (motion needed) B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from August 18, 2025, VAB 2025 Session Organizational Meeting (motion needed) 3. General Business Discussion A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the Florida Legislature affecting VAB (informational) 1) Department of Revenue — Property Tax Oversight and Florida Legislative Session (2025) Proposed Bills (informational) Page 1 March 30, 2026 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 Property Tax Oversight Informational Bulletin 3 Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for FLORIDA New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment Effective January 1, 2026 December 23, 2025 PTO 25-19 This bulletin provides information about new provisional forms for implementing the new requirements for when petitioners request a hearing that will use electronic communication equipment, which will be effective January 1, 2026. The new provisional petition forms also include updates to the August 2025 updates regarding the evidence exchange procedures. The new provisional forms are marked with revision date "R. 12/25." New Provisional Forms The following forms are being replaced based on the law change: • Form DR-481, Value Adjustment Board Notice of Hearing, R. 12/25 replaces R. 08/25. • Form DR-481REM, Value Adjustment Board Notice of Remote Hearing, N. 12/25 new form. • Form DR-486, Petition to the Value Adjustment Board Request for Hearing, R. 12/25 replaces R. 08/25. • Form DR-486PORT, Petition to the Value Adjustment Board Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference Request for Hearing, R. 12/25 replaces R. 08/25. The new provisional forms are available at https:Hfloridarevenue.com/propeLty/Pages/Fonns.aspx. Usage of the New Provisional Forms • The new Form DR-481 R. 12/25 should be used for all hearings scheduled after January 1, 2026. • The new Form DR-481REM N. 12/25 should be used for all hearings scheduled after January 1, 2026. • The new forms DR-486 R. 12/25 and DR-486PORT R. 12/25 should be used immediately. Information on the usage of these forms is included in the draft rule amendments to Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C. These draft rule amendments are available at https:Hfloridarevenue.com/rules/Pa esg /12D_0725.aspx labeled as "Draft Rule Language (12D-9): December 22, 2025" Bulletin PTO 25-19 December 23, 2025 Page 2 of 2 Note on Effective Dates These provisional forms are being made available and are recommended for use to implement the necessary requirements for hearings using electronic communication equipment. Due to the effective date of the statute amendment, the Department did not have sufficient time to complete the process of formally adopting these forms. The Department held two workshops October 15 and December 9, 2025, and received public comments on the draft rules. The Department will continue to work on these forms and will consider comments received as that work proceeds. Please send any comments by email to DORPTOgfloridarevenue.com. In the meantime, these provisional forms are recommended for use in order to be in compliance with the statute on the use of electronic communication equipment for value adjustment board hearings. These provisional forms and draft rules are not binding as rules but they are intended to afford due process and a way to comply with the legal requirements in the statute that is effective January 1, 2026. The forms reflect the Department's best understanding and recommendation on how the statute amendments function. COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 2025 SESSION FINAL MEETING AGENDA March 30, 2026 @ 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 VAB Members and Alternates: Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman (BCC, District 3) Chris Hall, VAB Vice -Chairman (BCC, District 2) Erick Carter (Collier County School Board, District 4) Rebecca Earney (Homestead, Citizen Member) Jill Rosenfeld (Alternate Homestead, Citizen Member) Dan Barone (Business, Citizen Member) VAB Staff in Attendance: VAB Legal Counsel, Holly E. Cosby Clerk to VAB, Crystal K. Kinzel — Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk's Designee, Derek Johnssen — Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Affidavit of Publication, Introductions, Contact List Review, and Quorum Requirements (per Chapter 194.015, F.S.) 2. Agenda and Minutes A. Approval of today's agenda (motion needed) B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from August 18, 2025, VAB 2025 Session Organizational Meeting (motion needed) 3. General Business Discussion A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the Florida Legislature affecting VAB (informational) 1) Department of Revenue — Property Tax Oversight and Florida Legislative Session (2025) Proposed Bills (informational) Page 1 March 30, 2026 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OVERSIGHT INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN To: Value Adjustment Board Attorneys From: Steve Keller, Office of General Counsel Date: November 4, 2025 This bulletin provides information about the status of rule amendments and new forms for implementing chapter 2025-208, section 10, Laws of Florida, providing for Electronic Appearances at the Value Adjustment Board, which will be effective January 1, 2026. At its rule workshop held on October 15, 2025, the Department received questions on the use of telephone technology for hearings. The Department recommends technology which enables a comprehensive and sophisticated substitute for an in -person hearing with real-time, two-way communication using electronic means in which participants are able to see, hear, and communicate with one another. The Department does not recommend or encourage telephone hearings due to reduced functionality in swearing in witnesses and parties and the potential effect on cross examination and due to inability to observe witness answers, comportment, facial expressions, etc. The following features are being drafted for inclusion in the rules and forms based on the law change: • In counties that conduct hearings using the telephone as the prearranged default option, the VAB must provide petitioners the option to appear in person or by audio visual technology. • In counties that conduct hearings using audio visual technology as the prearranged default option, the VAB must provide petitioners the option to appear in person. • Counties must notify the petitioner of their right to a hearing in person or using audio visual technology and may only use telephone hearings when petitioners do not request a hearing in person or a hearing using audio visual technology. • A petitioner cannot be required to attend a hearing by use of telephone where the petitioner requests a to appear in person or by audio visual technology. • Provide a way for public attendance to observe hearings via electronic or other communication equipment. In counties that conduct hearings using the telephone as the prearranged default option, the VAB must permit the public to request to attend. This process would entail posting the list of scheduled hearings. • For hearings that are scheduled using electronic or other communication equipment, the log on information, link and passwords must be posted to allow public attendance. The Department will schedule another Rule Development Workshop to inform interested parties and receive public comments on the next draft of the rules and forms. Questionnaire: In an effort to gather additional information for the draft rule amendments, the Department requests your response to the questions below by November 18, 2025. Please send your response by email to VAB(afloridarevenue.com. Questions: What is the technology your VAB is considering: Zoom, Webex, Teams, telephone, etc.? 2. Has your county offered telephonic hearings previously? 3. If your county is considering audio visual technology such as Zoom, Webex, Teams, what are any problems issues or concerns with this technology? Please feel free to comment. Organizational Meetings to Implement New Procedures The value adjustment board (VAB) should hold another organizational meeting to discuss and implement these new procedures in order to make them available to petitioners. This organizational meeting is necessary because the legislation, chapter 2025-208, section 10, Laws of Florida, included the requirement that the VAB provide electronic or other communication equipment to allow petitioners to appear remotely at hearings and requires that such equipment is adequate and functional for clear communication among participants, to create hearing records required by law, and to ensure that petitioners can submit and transmit evidence to the VAB in a format that can be processed, viewed, printed, and archived. The organizational meeting is necessary so the VAB can ascertain adequate and functional electronic or other communication equipment is provided. Questions The Department has provided this bulletin for your general information. Send any questions by email to VABAfloridarevenue.com. Reference The full text of the implementing law (chapter 2025-208, section 10, Laws of Florida), which amends section 194.0032, F.S., is available at hgps:Hlaws.flrules.org/2025/208. Implementing Date This section of law is effective January 1, 2026, and first applies to the 2025 tax roll. Collier County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) Responses to Department of Revenue (DOR) November 4, 2025 Questionnaire Regarding Remote Hearings Question 1: What is the technology your VAB is considering: Zoom, Webex, Teams, telephone, etc.? Response: At this time, the Collier County VAB provides petitioners with the ability to participate in remote hearings via telephone. In the event a different directive is mandated by law, Collier County will certainly endeavor to comply with the law. Question 2: Has your county offered telephonic hearings previously? Response: Yes. Question 3: If your county is considering audio-visual technology such as Zoom, Webex, Teams, what are any problems, issues, or concerns with this technology? Please feel free to comment. Response: Collier County VAB's concerns with utilizing audio-visual technology would be: 1) Petitioner inability to access or utilize Zoom/Webex/Teams/etc, 2) Ability to provide remote VAB hearings that are ADA compliant (i.e. providing captions for the hearing impaired), 3) Protecting a party's confidential information displayed during an audio-visual hearing, which would be accessible to anyone, with the potential ability to screen -shot confidential information by anyone in attendance, 4) Connectivity issues — landline is more stable than internet, 5) Changes to the VAB hearing schedule(s), which occur regularly, that could cause a public participant frustration when intending to attend remotely, as VAB Administration would not be able to advertise or post notice of hearing schedule changes to the public in real-time ["public participant" = a non-party/non-witness], and 6) Potentially interfering with a party's due process by offering hearing options that are not accessible to a party (i.e. a party is able to participate by telephone but unable to participate by Zoom/Webex/Teams/etc.) I hereby affirm that the above is provided after conferring with my client. Respectfully Submitted, /S/ Holly E. Cosby Holly E. Cosby VAB Counsel Collier County VAB STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PROGRAM CHAPTER 12D-9, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARDS IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS; UNIFORM RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARDS AMENDING RULES 12D-9.001, 12D-9.014, 12D-9.019, 12D-9.020, 12D-9.025, AND 12D-9.026 12D-9.001 Taxpayer Rights in Value Adjustment Board Proceedings. (1) No change. (2) These rights include: (a) through (h) No change. (i) The right to appear at a hearing using electronic or other communication equipment upon written request at least 10 calendar days before the date of the hearing in any county having a population of 75,000 or more, and in any cognly having a population of less than 75,000 that has not opted out as provided by law, and the right to be notified of this right on the notice of hearing; (i) through (r) Renumbered as 0) through (s) No change. Rulemaking Authority 194. 01 ] (5), 194. 034(1), 195. 027(1);213. 06(l) FS. Law Implemented 192.0105, 193.074, 194.011, 194.013, 194.015, 194.032, 194.034, 194.035, 194.036, 194.301, 1 195.002, 195.027, 195.084, 196.151, 196.193, 196.194 FS. History New 3-30-10, Amended 9- 19-17, 12D-9.014 Prehearing Checklist. (1) The board clerk shall not allow the holding of scheduled hearings until the board legal counsel has verified that all requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and department rules, were met as follows: (a) through (n) No change. (o)1. The board has ascertained that the board has provided electronic or other communication equipment, to allow petitioners to appear at hearings, that is adequate and functional for clear communication among participants and for creatingharing records required by law, and that petitioners can submit and transmit evidence to the board in a format that can be processed, viewed, printed, and archived; or 2. Alternatively, the county has a population of less than 75,000, and the board adopted a resolution or motion to opt out of providinghearings earin sg using electronic or other communication equipment, as provided by law. (2) No change. Rulemaking Authority 194.01](5), 194.034(1), 195.027(1);213-96(1)FS. Law Implemented 194.011, 194.015, 194.032, 194.034, 194.035 FS. History New 3-30-10, Amended 9-19- 17, 12D-9.019 Scheduling and Notice of a Hearing. (1) through (2) No change. (3)(a) The notice of hearing before the value adjustment board shall be in writing, and shall be delivered by regular or certified U.S. mail or personal delivery, or in the manner requested by the petitioner on Form DR-486, so that the notice shall be received by the petitioner no less than twenty-five (25) calendar days prior to the day of such scheduled appearance. The Form DR-486 series is adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 12D-16.002, F.A.C. The notice of hearing form shall meet the requirements of this section and shall be subject to approval by the department. The department provides Form DR-481 as a format for the form of such notice. The F,,,.,,, DR ^ 4, , Value Adjustment Board — Notice of Hearing, (Form DR-481) is adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 12D-16.002, F.A.C. (b) The notice shall include these elements: 1. through 12. No change C, 13. If the hearing is in person, information for the petitioner to appear remotely at the hearing using electronic or other communication equipment if the county has not opted out as provided by law. 14. The notice shall contain the followina statements: "If this notice sets forth a communication mode using audio visual technology, you request an in person hearing." "If this notice is for a telephone hearing, you may request a hearing using audio visual technology or an in person hearing" (c) If the petitioner requests an in person hearing the clerk shall accommodate the petitioner for the date, time, hearing address, and room. The clerk shall accommodate a petitioner's request for a hearing using audio visual technology, if the prearranged default mode is in person or telephone. Requests for hearing using electronic or other communication equipment must be made as provided in Rule 12D-9.026, F.A.C. (4) through (8) No change. Rulemaking Authority 194.011(5), 194.034(1), 195.027(1);213-0€(4) FS. Law Implemented 194.011, 194.015, 194.032, 194.034, 195.022 FS. History —New 3-30-10, Amended 9-26-11, 6-14- 16, 7-1-16, 3-13-17, 9-19-17, 12D-9.020 Exchange of Evidence. (1)(a)1. At least 15 days before a petition hearing, the petitioner shall provide to the property appraiser a list of evidence to be presented at the hearing, a summary of evidence to be presented by witnesses, and copies of all documentation to be presented at the hearing. This provision does not preclude rebuttal evidence that was not specifically requested of the petitioner in writing by the property appraiser. 2. At least 15 days before a petition hearing the property appraiser shall provide to the petitioner a list of evidence to be presented at the hearing, a summary of evidence to be presented by witnesses, and copies of all documentation to be presented at the hearing. The property Opraiser's evidence list must contain the current property record card. This provision does not preclude use of rebuttal evidence by the propegy gppraiser. If the property appraiser does not provide the information to the petitioner within the time required, the hearing shall be rescheduled to allow the petitioner additional time to review the propegy gppraiser's evidence. th)2-. To calculate the fifteen (15) days, the petitioner and property appraiser shall use calendar days and shall not include the day of the hearing in the calculation, and shall count backwards from the day of the hearing, using the calendar day before the hearingas s day. The last day of the fifteen (15) day period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event the period runs shall until the end of the next previous day that is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 4 (c) No petitioner may present for consideration, nor may a board or special magistrate accept for consideration, testimony or other evidentiary materials that were specifically requested of the petitioner in writing by the property appraiser in connection with a filed petition, of which the petitioner had knowledge and denied to the property appraiser. If the property appraiser asks in writing for specific evidence before the hearing in connection with a filed petition, and the petitioner has this evidence and knowingly refuses to provide it to the property appraiser, the evidence cannot be presented by the petitioner or accepted for consideration by the board or special magistrate. Such evidentiary materials shall be considered timely if provided to the property appraiser no later than fifteen (15) days before the hearing in accordance with the exchange of evidence rules in this section. A petitioner's ability to introduce the evidence, requested of the petitioner in writing by the property appraiser, is lost if not provided to the property appraiser as described in this paragraph. A petitioner's (1)(a), does not atAhorize a value adjustment board or- speeial magistfate to exelude flo > the pfoper ihall, FIR M-1 -- •-�-� Petitioner-, Jetsl-. (b) To ealettlate the seven (7) days, the pr-epeft-y appraiser- shall tise ealefidaf days Emd shall the heat4fig. The last day of the -period so eeff�ptited shall be ifieltided tifiless it is a Satur-da�-, !����. .e!�ss�ea�•s�r.�rs�!�ee� . (4) through (6) Renumbered as (2) through (4) No change. M. I-- FEMME . n writing by the pr-epeft-y appraisef: in eefineetion with a filed petition, of whieh the pfaperty appraisef less than fifteen (15) days bef6r-e the hearing, stieh materials shall be .... .ems . !tisss. (5)M No change. Rulemaking Authority 194.01](5), 194.034(1), 195.027(1);213-960) FS. Law Implemented 194.011, 194.015, 194.032, 194.034, 194.035, 195.022 FS. History New 3-30-10, Amended 6- 14-16, 4-10-18, 12D-9.025 Procedures for Conducting a Hearing; Presentation of Evidence; Testimony of Witnesses. (1) through (3) No change. (4)(a) No evidence shall be considered by the board or special magistrate except when presented and admitted during the time scheduled for the petitioner's hearing, or at a time when the petitioner has been given reasonable notice. The petitioner- may still pr-esent evidenee if he or- tiss�r:e�!�::ess!�. irss s�W-2 .ss .....,...� ,�:.A.: s..:�:.�.,..:.� petitioner- has this evidenee and r-efiises to pr-ovide it to the pr-opeft-y appraiser-, the elvidenee S (b) No change. (c) In a hearing other than a remote hearing under Rule 12D-9.026, F.A.C., in order to be reviewed by the board or special magistrate, copies of any evidence filed with the board clerk shall be brought to the hearing by the party. This requirement shall not apply where: 1. through 2. No change. (d) through (e) No change. (f)1. No petitioner shall present for consideration, nor shall the board or special magistrate accept for consideration, testimony or other evidentiary materials that were specifically requested of the petitioner in writing by the property appraiser in connection with a filed petition, of which the petitioner had knowledge and denied to the property appraiser. If the propertygppraiser asks in writing for specific evidence before the hearing in connection with a filed petition, and the petitioner has this evidence and refuses to provide it to the property gppraiser, the evidence cannot be presented by the petitioner or accepted for consideration by the board or special magistrate. 2. Such evidentiary materials shall be considered timely if provided to the property appraiser no later than fifteen (15) days before the hearing in accordance with the exchange of evidence rules in Rule 12D-9.020, F.A.C., and, if provided to the pr-epeAy appf-aiset: less than fifteen (154 days before the hearing, shall be eensider-ed timely if the board or- speeial magistfate detefmines s 3. A petitioner's ability to introduce the evidence requested of the petitioner in writing by the property appraiser, is lost if not provided to the property appraiser as described in this paragraph. 4. This provision does not preclude rebuttal evidence that was not specifically requested of the petitioner by the property appraiser. FoF pttfpesesszndle and mottle 12D 9.020F n fvasofiablefiess shall be detei:mified by whethef: the material ean be r-eviewed, investigated, and in good faith and not denied evidenee to the pr-epeft-f appraiser- pfier- to the heafing, as pr-avided 5.2-. No change. (g) No change. (5) No change. (6)(a) By agreement of the parties entered in the record, the board or special magistrate may leave the record open and postpone completion of the hearing to a date certain to allow a parry to collect and provide additional relevant and credible evidence. Such postponements shall be limited to instances where, after completing original presentations of evidence, the parties agree to the collection and submittal of additional, specific factual evidence for consideration by the board or special magistrate. In lieu of completing the hearing, upon agreement of the parties the board or special magistrate is authorized to consider such evidence without further hearing. (b) No change. (c) In a petition to decrease the just value, the board or special magistrate may not revise the value above the propegy gppraiser's presented value. In a petition to decrease the just value, the following limitations shall apply if the property appraiser seeks to present additional evidence that was unexpectedly discovered and that would increase the assessment. 1. through 6. No change. (d) In a petition to increase the just value, the property appraiser may provide an increased just value to the petitioner before the hearing or at the hearing. In such case, if the petitioner agrees with the property appraiser's increased just value, the petitioner may settle or withdraw the petition. If the petitioner does not agree with the property appraiser's increased just value, the hearing shall not be canceled on that ground. This provision applies only in petitions to increase the just value. In a petition to increase the just value, the board or special magistrate may not revise the value below the prop_egy appraiser's presented value. (7) through (10) No change. Rulemaking Authority 194.011(5), 194.034(1), 195.027(1) FS. Law Implemented 193.092, 194.011, 194.032, 194.034, 194.035 FS. History New 3-30-10, Amended 6-14-16, 9-19-17, 8-17- 21, I1-26-23, 12D-9.026 Procedures for Requesting and Conducting a Hearing by Electronic Media. (1) This rule sets forth criteria for hearings in addition to those found in Rules 12D-9.024 and 1213-9.025, F.A.C. Hearings conducted by electronic media shall occur end under the conditions set forth in this rule section. The board must reasonably accommodate parties that have hardship or lack necessary equipment or ability to access equipment. 10 ■. aTa��a. n (2) A petitioner may request to appear at a hearing using electronic or other communication equipment by submitting a written request at least 10 calendar days before the date of the hearing. For- at+y hear-ing eendueted by eleetfenie media, the board shall easttre tha (a) The written request must: 1. Contain the petition number and parcel number. 2. Contain petitioner's name. 3. Be sent to the value adiustment board email address listed on Form DR-481 that notices this hearing. 4. Contain an email address for response and follow up by the clerk. (b) To calculate the ten (10) dampetitioner must use calendar days and not include the day of the hearing in the calculation, and count backwards from the day of the hearing using the calendar day before the hearing da. any 1. The last day of the ten (10) day period is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next previous day that is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. c) The clerk must ensure that all parties are notified of such written reauest. (d) If a request is received in an.. city in which the board has opted out of providing hearings using electronic communication equipment, the clerk shall promptly notify any 11 petitioner requesting a hearing using electronic or other communication equipment of such opt out, in accordance with Section 194.032(2)(b)4., F.S. (3) A hearing must be noticed by the clerk sending a Value Adjustment Board - Notice of Remote Hearing (Form DR-481REM, incorporated by reference in Rule 12D-16.002, F.A.C.). (a) The notice must read: Any p fey m r-eqtiest to appear at ., hearing before a board Of .. :. :.... allows a pat4y to appear- by telephone, all members of the beafd in the heafing of the speeial "Your hearing will be conducted using electronic or other communication equipment." "You will be attending the hearing using electronic or other communication equipment." (b) The notice must: , 1. Contain the petition number; 2. Contain the petitioner's name; 3. Contain the hearing date and time; 4. Identify the specific form of communication technology to be used and provide instructions for access to the communication technology in the body of the notice with telephone 12 numbers, meeting codes, passwords and other access information; 5. Contain a statement that the petitioner must upload evidence or email evidence to the designated address of the value adjustment board no later than 9:00 a.m. the non -holiday workday before the hearing date; 6. Contain the evidence upload email address or upload weblink to the software system; 7. Contain the clerk's telephone number; 8. Contain the clerk's email; 9. Contain the clerk's or deputy's name and signature; 10. Any information necessary to comply with federal or state disability or accessibility (4) The board must have available the necessary equipment and procedures for using the equipment in hearings. (a) "Electronic or other communication equipment" means: 1. Technology in compliance with applicable law which enables real-time, two-way communication using electronic means in which participants are able to see, hear, and communicate with one another; or 2. telephone; or 3. a combination thereof. (b) The board must provide electronic or other communication equipment to allow petitioners to appear using electronic or other communication equipment at hearings that is adequate and functional for clear communication among participants and for creatinghearing earing records required by law, and that petitioners can submit and transmit evidence to the board in a format that can be processed, viewed, printed, and archived. 13 (c) Petitioners requesting remote hearings must ensure they have the necessary connectivity and equipment. (5)(a) Hearing procedures must include applicable procedures in Rules 12D-9.024 and 12D- 9.025, F.A.C. (b) If the board or special magistrate allows a party to appear using electronic or other communication equipment, all members of the board in the hearing or the special magistrate must be physicallypresent in the hearing room. (6)(a) Evidence, including rebuttal evidence must be uploaded or emailed to the designated address of the value adjustment board, and received no later than 9:00 a.m. on the workday before the hearing date. If a hearing is on Mond, then evidence must be uploaded by 9:00 a.m. on the previous Friday (b) The petitioner must submit and transmit evidence to the board in a format that can be processed, viewed, printed, and archived. The documents must be in portable document format (c) The documents must have a cover page which includes: 1. Petition number; 2. Parcel or folio number(s): 3. Petitioner name: 4. Which party is submitting the documents; 5. Telephone number; and 6. Witnesses' names and telephone numbers if they are not at petitioner's telephone number. (d) Pages of the documents must be sequentially numbered if the clerk does not utilize any software in operating the value adjustment board and/or if the clerk's software does not number 14 pages automatically. (e) The process of uploading the documents into the value adjustment board's computer system, or emailing the documents to the designated address of the value adjustment board, described in this subsection is a separate process from the evidence exchange between a petitioner and the property appraiser described in Rule 12D-9.020, F.A.C. The evidence exchange process happens outside of the purview of the value adjustment board. Petitioners must participate in both of these processes, separately. (7) Witnesses must be available. (a) The petitioner is responsible for ensuring all witnesses called by the petitioner are available, have the necessary electronic or other communication equipment, and have copies of documents necessary to their testimony. (b) Witness information for witnesses that will not be at the petitioner's location must be included on the cover page to the documents as specified in paragraph (6)(c). (8)(a)(4) The board must provide a physical location at which a party may appear, if requested. Such hearings must be open to the public either by providing the ability for interested members of the public to choose either to join the hearing using electronic or other communication equipment eleetfenieall or to monitor the hearing at the location of the board or special magistrate. If the board or special magistrate allows a party to qppear using electronic or other communication equipment, all members of the board in the hearing or the special magistrate must be physically present in the hearingroom. oom. (b) To be open to the public using electronic or other communication equipment, proper notice must be ,given and interactive access by members of the public provided. 1. A list of hearings must be posted on the board's website, or the clerk must provide a list 15 upon request. 2. For hearingsg audio visual technolog., , the information, links and passwords must be posted on the board's website to allow public access via the Internet or the clerk must provide this information on request. 3. For hearings using the telephone, the board must permit members of the public to request to attend and must accommodate such requests by providing call in numbers. Rulemaking Authority 194. 011(5), 194. 034(1), 195. 027(1);212� FS. Law Implemented 194.011, 194.032, 194.034, 195.035, 195.022, 195.084 FS. istory New 3-30-10, Amended 16 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 t1� COLLIER C 1JIw TV 2025 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VERIFICATION OF VAS COMPLLkNCE and PREHEARING CHECKLIST (to supplement Form DOR488p) Information to be verified prior to, during or after the Organizational Meeting, and pursuant to F.S. §194.011(5),1*.A.C.§12D-9.013 and F.A.C,512D-9.014 Wrif:cation: Pre-Orgarilizational Meeting VA comprised of two (2) County Comm issionrm, one (I � SchooI Board Member, one (1) 77cC Citizen Member appointed by the I30CC and one (1) Citizen Member appointed by the School 3 Board - Ex, I Ex. 2, Ex. 3a Ex. 3b Ex. 4, . Mtg. Agenda Item JA & Verbatim itiart Wmbers met all criteria pursuant to F.S. §194.015 and KA.C. § 12D-9.004 - 7/22/25 Org. Mi . Age ad a Iteta 3C, BoCC & School ward ve rify, Ex. 3a Ex. 3b Ex. 4, Verbatim EC VAB Attorney rneefin @ the requirementso€KS. §194.013 has been appointed or rav ried- 7/22a5 Ong. Mtg. Agenda Item 6 & Verbatim EiEC N o VAB members represent other governmental entities or taxpayers in any administrative or f22/25 judicial review of property taxes - Ex. 3% Ex. 3 b, Ex. 4, Org. Mtg. Agenda Items 3A, 3C, 3/24/26 and 12C, BoCC & School Board verify & Verbatim HEC Citizen members are not members or employees of a taxing authority for the current VAH 122/25 session- Ex. 3a, Ex. 3>b, Ex.. 4, Org. Mtg. Agenda Items X and i?C, BoCC & School 3/24/26 Board vergy & Verbatim HEC The arga n izatiowl meeting, as well as any other board meetings, will be or were aeticed in 7/22125 accordance with F.S. §286.011, and will be help! irp accordance with law - Verbatim rar Org. Mt,g. A enda Item 2/Additional statement re: Affidavit of Publication #EC The organizational meeting notice includes the date, time, location, putpo5e OF the meeting, 7/22125 and information required by F.S. §286,0105 - Verbatim for Org. Mtg. Agenda Item 2/Additional statement re: Affidavit of Publication The DOR's uniform value adjustment board procedures. were made available at the !22/25 organ izntionaI meeting and copies were provided to special magistrates and board members - Or . Mtg. Agenda Item 10C & Verbatim -HEC The DOR's uniform policiee; and procedures manual is available on the existing website of the 7/22/25 board clerk - Ex. 5, Org. M(g. ftenda item l0O & Verbatim C The qual if ications of special magistrates were ver] fled - Org. MIg. Agenda Item 7; Verbatim 7/22/2 HEC VA Attorney has received the DOR training and has passed she correspowlding exam - 8/22/25 Attorney will provide VA Administration with a Certificate of Completion "d Pran f of Passing Exam when available - Ex. 6 - Org. Mtg. ftenda Item 9 HEC All appointed specialI magistrates have received the DOR trainmg and have completed the 8/15, 8/16, came' and ptlssed any corresponding exam#. and special magistraws with less di an f vc gears of 8/17, 8/ 5, 8/27, 9/ mquired experpcnce successfully Cottlploted the 13011's trainitlg including any updated modules 9/12 and an examination, and were certiFed - Org. N11tg. Agenda Item 9 - Ex. 7 - VAB will (a112025) uG,4t erlifiCaLC3 of Com leticwn '1'be scI=don of special magistrates was based solely an proper experience and qualifications. /22/25 and neither the praperty appraiser nor any petitioners influenced the selection of special magistrates, - Org. Mt . Agenda Item 7• Verbatim EC The VAS is willing to consider any written complaint filet# with re9pcc( to a special magistrate 7/'22/25 by any pattyor citizen F.A.C. 12D-9. 9 I - O rK. Mfg. Agenda Item 12C; Verbatim HEC All procedures and Forms of the board or special magistrate are in cornphance with F.B. §194 7122/25 and F.A.C< §12D-9- Org. Mtg. Agenda Items 1011 attd 12C; Verbatim; VAB Attorney oversees throughout VAH mmion Page E of 3 Ell HEC Not Wet%;l has/ha vs: been give Pi tea Cho chief executive ofrrer of each munic!pal 3(y as provided in 3/24/26 F., § 193,116 -- Ex. 9 The VAB is in compliance with F.S. §194 and F-A.C. 12D-9 - Org. M(g. Agenda Item I? ; 7/22/25 Verbatim- VAB Attarnex overt tbrov hout VAS session Organizational Meeting; August 18 2025 T e VAB held nrganiwional meeting prior to the holding of value adjunmetnt hoard hearings - O . M . A enda. O . IMt . Agenda Item I I AfUmvit of Publication & Verbatim The VAB introduced the members of the board and provided contact information - 0rg. Mtg. ennds Item 3A BSc Verbatim The VAB introduced the board clerk and any designee of the board clerk and provided the hoard clerk's contact information - O rg. M# . Agenda Item 3B & Verbatim -The, VAB apgo inted and/or ratified s cial ma isrra.tes - Org. Mtg. A enda Item 7- Verbatim The VAB made F.A.C. 1213-9 available to the public, special magistrates and board mernbers, leicornuirr ng the uniform ruies of pmcedure for hearings before value adjustment boards and spee;iat magistrates - available at organnizationai meeting and on the websitc of the board clerk - Ex. 5L . Mtg. Agenda Item I4G etc Verbatim The, VAB rnadi F.A.C. 12D-10 available to the public, special magistrates and board inumbers. l Onmining the rules applicable to the requirements for hearirngs and decisions - available at organizational meeting and on the website of the hoard clerk- Ex. ; Org. lM1g. Agenden ltew IGG & Verbatim The VAB made the requirements of r lorida"s Government in the Sunshine / open government laws inc Iuding information on where to obtain the carrent GcpvcrRI ent-ln-The- Linshine manual available to the public. special. magistrates and board members - available at organizationaI meeting and on the website of the board cleric- Ex. 5; Org. Mig. Agenda ltent IOG & Verbatim The VAB inade F.A.C. 12D-51.001. 1213-51.002 and 12D-51.003 available to the public. special rnagiatrates and lxiard members - avai lahle at organszmional meeting and on the websiw of the board clerk- Ex. 5• Org. Mt . A endst Item IOG & Verbatim The VAS made the associated forms that have been adopted by the DOR available to the ubGe, special magistrates and N)ard members - available. at organizational Muting and Din the ebsi[e of the hoard clerk - Ex. a"• Org. Mtg. Agenda item IOG & Verbatim The VAB made all local administrative procedures and forms of the board or spec W magistrates available to the public, spec -sal magistrates and board members - available at organ izati onai meeting and on the webaite of the board cleric- Ex. 5; Org. Mfg. Agenda Item 103 & Verbatim The VAB made F. S. Chapters 192-195 available to the public, special magisuates and board as reference in Formation containing the guidelines and statutes applicable t(] I)nembers assessments and assessment administration - available at orgarizatiurnaI meeting and on the ebsite of the board cleric- Ex. 5; Org. Mt . Agenda Item IOG & Verbatim The VAB discussed. leek testirnQny can and adopted or ratified with any required revision or -amendment any local administrative procedures and forms of the beard. as necessary - Org. Mtg. Agenda Item IOB & Verbatim The VAB local procedures are minist�crial in nature and are not inconsistent with goverrdng statutes, case law, attorney general opinions or rules of the department - 0rg. Mtg. Agenda Item 12C; Verbatim & VAB Attarogy oversees throughout VAB session The VAB discussed general in€ormation on Florida's property tax system. respective roles within this system, taxpayer oppenunities to participate in the system, and property taxpayer rights - this issue} has a separate agenda item, supplernented with additional lecai informational handouts: this discussion will be reflected in the verbatim record and minutes - Org. IMeg. Agenda Item IOA; Verbatim Pap 2 of 3 The VAB adoptedlratified, by resolution, any tiling fee for petitions For the current VA13 cession, in an amount nut to excoed $50.00 - O Eg, Mtg. Agenda item 10D & Verbatim ne VAB announced the tentative schedule far the value adjustment board, taking into c:onsideradon the number of petitions filed. the passibi11ly of the need to reschedule and the requirement that tile, board stay in session until alt petitions have been heard - Org. Mg. .Agender Item 11C & Verbatim 1, Holly E. Cosby, Esq_ CaIlier County Value Adjustment Board Attorney, hereby verify the foI[owing on July 22202 : 1) the above 1aformalion regarding pre -hearing, pre-organvAtional and orgarkati on a I requirements were verifW, reviewed, and considered, where applicable, on July 22, 202S. 2) the Organiza I innal Mr-eling Fur the Cotlier County 2025 VAB Smion was field on August 18, 2025, and Lhe above information regarding organizational ineeting requiremenui wwi verified, reviewed, and considered at said meeting, and 3) hearings for the Collier CounLy 2025 VAB Session will commence on or alter October 15 4 o y E. Cosby, Esq, - V H Counsel 1, Holly E. Cosby, Esq, Collier County Value Adjustment Board Attorney. hereby verify the following on August 18, 2025- 1) "here are threz (3) items above, which could not be verified before or during the urganixaticnal rnee0rig, which arc: a. VAB Attomey has received DOR training and has passed the corresponding exam, b. All appoiriled special magi strates have received the Do training and have complete-d the same. and special magistrates with less than Flee }ears of required exp�rieiwe successfully completed the DOR's trairting including any updated modules and an exam i ination, and wem certified, and c. Notice has been given to the chief executive of "r of each municipaIity as provided iii .2) 1terns I (a) and i (b) could not be veri fled because the current DOR training was released on August 15 , 2025, and VAB Attorney was not able to reasonably t:omplete said training prior to the instant meeting: further, it is only reasonably to expect that all special rnagistrates complete the DOR train ing in a time- Iy manner, which wouid be defined as completing the DOR training prior to holding VAB hearings in Collier County, 3) item I (a) will be ccrnpieted as soon as reasonably practicable, and VAB Artorney will provide proof of the saint. 4) Item I(b) will be verified prior to special magistrates holding VAB hearings in Cattier Cotiary. 5) Item I (c) could nN be verified hceause no VAB hearings had been scheduled prior ro the organixationeI meeting, For such notices to be required. 61 Once the above referenced, unverified items are able to be verified. S witI provide tire, VAB vw+ith doaumenlaa-ion and verification for the same. Fr Digitally signed by Holly E. Cosby, Esq. Holly E Cosby, Esq PA, E. Cosby, Esq., aLaw Office of Holly E. Cosby, PA, ou=VAB Counsel, email=vablawyer@outlook.com, c=US Date: 2026.03.2413:50:53-04'00' L. Coal y, Esq. - VAB Counsel Page 3 of 3 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" 2025 COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VERIFICATION OF SCHOOL BOARD CITIZEN MEMBER QUALIFICATIONS Name of Applicant: Position of Interest: New Applicant: Daniel Barone Citizen Board Member Appointed by School Board VA Information Received: School Board Returning Applicant: N Information Compiled: 2/20/2026 & 3/24/2026 F.S. §194.015 and F.A.C. §12D-9.004 Verification (performed by HEC on 2/20/2026 and 3/24/2026): Y/N Criteria Y Own a business/commercial enterprise, occupation, profession, or trade occupying and conducted from commercials ace located within the school district of Collier County? Y Verified Name and Address of Business: (Sunbiz.org) Barone & Cola CPAs, PA 2335 Tamiami Trail N., Unit 408 a/k/a 2335 9th St. N., Unit 408 Naples, Florida 34103 Y Verify ownership of business:(Sunbiz.org) N Member of a taxing authority in Florida? N Employee of a taxing authority in Florida? N Represents property owners, property appraisers, tax collectors, or taxing authorities in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes? Prior Service Comments/Concerns: Applicant will be a wonderful addition to the Collier VAB. Applicant is a CPA and owns a local business operated in a commercial building located in Collier County. Applicant is involved in the community and his service to the Collier VAB will be valued and appreciated. Additional Comments: To supplement documentation provided to the VAB. VAB Counsel reviewed the State of Florida Department of Corporations website (Sunbiz.org) to verify that Applicant's company is in good standing that Applicant continues to own the company and that the address of the company is located in a commercial space in Collier County. VAB Counsel and VAB Administration are grateful for Applicant's willingness to, believe that Applicant will be a wonderful addition to the Collier Countv VAB. and find no conflicts of interest in Applicant serving on the same. Supplements attached: Corporate Verification — Sunbiz.org; LLC/Company Verification — Sunbiz.org; 2026 Company Annual Report — Sunbiz.org; Verification of Commercial Space — CollierAppraiser.com; Excerpt from 12/10/25 School Board Meeting Minutes appointing Applicant Date appointed/ratified by School Board: December 10, 2025. I, Holly E. Cosby, Esq., Collier County Value Adjustment Board Attorney, hereby verify the following: 1) that the above information has been verified, reviewed, and considered on 2/20/2026 and 3/24/2026, 2) that the Applicant is qualified to serve as Citizen Board Member Appointed by School Board, 3) that this review has been based solely upon the qualifications of the Applicant, 4) that pursuant to Section 287.05701, Florida Statutes, the Value Adjustment Board has not requested documentation of and has not considered Applicant's social, political, or ideological interests when determining if the Applicant is a responsible appointee, 5) that the approval of the Applicant is not influenced by the property appraiser, and 6) that the approval of the Applicant is not influenced by any party or potential party to a VAB proceeding or by any such party with an interest in the outcome of any such proceeding. Digitally signed by Holly E. Cosby, Esq. Holly E. Cosby, Esq. Dm il= bloawyerr@o tlnokcom,aw05ceofHollyE. Date: 2026.03.24 13:22:18-04'00' Holly E. Cosby, Esq. - VAB Counsel Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" Page 1 of 6 Page 1 of 1 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS 4r IDrlzir)v q y j * II� �,�� ✓! � �Sr � i_� � � l oleo Ofjlrful .1rare of AlorFela ovebilee Department of State / Division of Corporations / Search Records / Search by Entity Name / Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation BARONE & COLA CPAS, P.A. Filing Information Document Number P24000010525 FEI/EIN Number 99-1329622 Date Filed 02/07/2024 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 28292 INDUSTRIAL RD UNIT 5 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 Mailing Address 28292 INDUSTRIAL RD UNIT 5 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 Registered Agent Name & Address COLA, ANTHONY 2640 12TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103 Officer/Director Detail Name & Address Title P COLA, ANTHONY 2640 12TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103 11MAT , BARONE, DANIEL 1189 DIANAAVE NAPLES, FL 34103 Annual Reports Checklist Exhibit "4 2" Page 2 Of 6 Report Year Filed Date 2025 02/08/2025 2026 01 /22/2026 Document Images 01/22/2026 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/08/2025 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/07/2024 -- Domestic Profit View image in PDF format Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "4 IQ" Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" Page 3 of 6 2026 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# P24000010525 Entity Name: BARONE & COLA CPAS, P.A. Current Principal Place of Business: 28292 INDUSTRIAL RD UNIT 5 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 Current Mailing Address: 28292 INDUSTRIAL RD UNIT 5 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 US FEI Number: 99-1329622 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: COLA, ANTHONY 2640 12TH ST N NAPLES.FL 34103 US 2025 Collier VAB FIL�Pcklist Exhibit "4 v2" Jan 22, 2026 Secretary of State 9224558652CC Certificate of Status Desired: No The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Officer/Director Detail : Title P Name COLA, ANTHONY Address 2640 12TH ST N City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34103 Title VP Name BARONE, DANIEL Address 1189 DIANA AVE City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34103 Date I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: DANIEL BARONE VP 01/22/2026 Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail Date Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" Page 4 of 6 Collier County Property Appraiser Summary Parcel ID 113181280008 ir Site Location 12335 9TH ST N, NAPLES 34103 Name/Address CAC NAPLES I I 204 9TH AVE SOUTH Citv SAFETY HARBOR State I FL 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" 34695 Legal MOORINGS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 408 Sub./Condo 89500 -MOORINGS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING THE A CONDOMINIUM Use Code 407 - COMMERCIAL I Millage Areal 4 1 Municipality I CITY OF NAPLES Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 4A28 089500 4084A28 28 49 25 0 �Ed Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) 2025 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Date Book -Page V/1 Q Amount Just Values Amount (+) Improvements $226,000 (_) Total Just $226,000 06/30/25 6485-3216 1 1 Y Y $327,000 $228,500 04/28/22 6124-3314 03/19/19 5609-681 I N $0 Assessed Values 06/11/18 5522-476 I N $0 (=) Assessed $226,000 12/06/90 1 1577-57 1 Y $120,000 1 Taxable Values Millage RatesVE 06/01/84 1088-2326 1 Y $100,000 (=) Taxable 9.0514 $226,000 Tax Amounts Ad Valorem Taxes $2,045.62 $2,045.62 (_) Total Tax Important: This is not a tax bill. Do not rely on current taxes to estimate taxes after a change in ownership. A transfer may significantly affect the taxable value due to loss of exemptions, reset of Save Our Homes or the 10% Cap, and/or market changes. Use our Tax Estimator to estimate taxes under new ownership. Values reflect conditions as of January 1 st each year and may differ from the actual tax bill due to millage changes or additional non -ad valorem assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier County Tax Collector's Office. Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" Page 5 of 6 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" 0istrid SChW 8nard of COtlier County Regular School Board Meeting (Wednesday, December 10, 025) Mernbers present: SriCk Carter, Steohanie 1-uCare1"r Kelly MaSOCI, TIN Mosh Per, Jerry Rutherford eftina of Meeting Call to Order Mrs. StaPhani0 J<ur*orr' Boartf Chair. relied ikfm ftleeUftg TQ order At 8-30 a-M. Roll Call The roll was called by Mg, Kathy Taylor. All board membLtm were present. Statement of Meeting Guidelines MM LUCWCili rtvFewtd the StAteMdrht Of M@ellng G111diHlft-S_ Board Chair Welcoming Remarks Mrs LoCare44 sharcxl ope nery remarks and usvile5d tfwe board rncmbLm to follow her to their seals to the dugltumLim for Chub` Pre"tatiarr pf 031ars and a Romord of Srler im- Fledge w {h+: f �gjmDmenl pt Silence Mr. GMT 01lmhr, Chef GdYslmLiNcst;nn Wiwi welwnr d the !ROTC from G01 Cowl +9rylw SCRou; W trlrt Presentation at Colors and a Momerd of Sdeince. Tfmre was a gerf rrrdr,ce by the CsaoDila tEiemvntary Choir. Qrise nit Aa Publat` CofTlmerits w1:r1+ FTyad(r by the follomnq individual, Diane Van Parys C170, C173, C174, C280, C2.81, C2-87, E20 Consen# Agenda - School Board P2 2026 Git qen Mrmper 0ttiL Value AdjuStrr "t Board ResGbtian- Approve Mr. Barone as CPic 2026 Citizen Member of the V4luc Ad)w0ment $card. F3 - Con veyanm and Maintenance Rights of Bear Crock Vernentary School LIt Station and flackflow Preventer to Iwrd of CourAy Corn 7issionam of Call ler County, Florida Remkitlar4: Approve the Conveyance and Mainter+ance Mghts of fear Creek rcaeMentafy School Uft 51;allan and Back flow Pr ntef to Board of County ammissicners of Cal IIer County, Flurada. Consent Agenda Approval Resotutlow Approve all rterns on the Consent Agenda as presentee} VOTI G/ 140TIgtj ML mouon was made to approve all items on the Consent Agenda as presented. abort by liar) Moshier, second by Ketly Mason. EknaI Resolution. Motion Carries Aye: Erick Carter, Stephanie Lucarell-r, Ke$ly Mason, Tim Moshier, Jerry Rutherf6rd Checklist Exhibit "4 v2" Page 6 of 6 2025 Collier VAB Certification of Training Completion The Florida Department of Revenue provides this document for a person to certify that he or she, personally and without any assistance, has completed the Department's 2025 Value Adjustment Board Training, including the exam, for Board Members or Board Attorneu. I certify that I, Holly E Cosby Personally, and without any assistance, have carefully reviewed and studied the content of Modules 1 through 11 of the Department of Revenue's 2025 Value Adjustment Board Trainin& for learning such content, and further certify that I, personally and without any assistance, have completed and passed the Department of Revenue's corresponding examination. This certification becomes valid only when signed and dated below by the person who completed the training including exam as described above. By my dated signature below, I further attest to my preceding statements. C C Digitally signed by Holly E. Cosby, Esq. Holly E. Cosby, E s q . Date 20 AB Cot Counsel, e ail=v blawyyerl@outlook com, c=ce of Holly E. US August u g u s t 2025 Signature and Certification of IININ00 kil Page 1 of 1 2025 Collier VAB Certification of Training Completion The Florida Department of Revenue provides this document for a person to certify that he or she, personally and without any assistance, has completed the Department's 2025 Value Adjustment Board Training, including the exam, for Real Property Appraiser Special Magistrate. I certify that I, Maxim Antonov Personally, and without any assistance, have carefully reviewed and studied the content of Modules 1 through 7 and Module 11 of the Department of Revenue's 2025 Value Adjustment Board Training for learning such content, and further certify that I, personally and without any assistance, have completed and passed the Department of Revenue's corresponding examination. f This certification bec es yali 0 rJy hen-�e and dated below by the person who compl ed � ininUpAuding exam as described above. By nxy dated si i re �_ - er ication of .ttest to my preceding statements. 08/16/2025 ELATE kil Page 1 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit " 7" Certification of Training Completion The Florida Departrnent of Revenue provides this docunzenf for a person to certify that he or she, personally and without any assistance, has c nplete the Department's 2 025 Value Adjust en r Board Training, including the exam, for Attorney Special A istrate. I certi fib that I, Ellen T. Chadwelt Personally, and without any assistance, have carefully reviewed aW studied the content of Modules 1 through 5 and Modules 9 through 11 of the Departin.ent of Revenue's 2025 Value Ad ust7nerat Board Training, for leaning such content, and further certify that 1, personally and without any assistance, have cmnpleted and passed the Department of Revenue's corresponding examinatiom This certification becomes valid only when sighed and dated below by the person who completed the training including exam as described above. By iny dated signature below, Y further attest to my preceding statements. Signature and Certification of DATE FLORIDA Checklist Exhibit " 7" Paue 2 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit " 7" Florida Department of Revenue Certificate of Training Joseph Haynes Davis has received 2025 Attorney Special Magistrates VAB Training wi 8/25/25 DA Checklist Exhibit " 7" Page 3 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit " 7" Florida Department of Revenue Certificate of Training Lorraine Dube has received 2025 Real Property Appraiser Special Magistrates VAB Training on 8/17/25 a lie, FLORIDA Checklist Exhibit " 7" Page 4 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit " 7" FLORIDA Checklist Exhibit " 7" Page 5 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Certification of Training Completion The Florida Department of Revenue provides this document for a person to certify that he or she, personally and without any assistance, has completed the Department's 2025 Value Adjustment Board Training, including the exam, for Real Property Appraiser Special Magistrate. I certify that I, Philicia Lloyd Personally, and without any assistance, have carefully reviewed and studied the content of Modules 1 through 7 and Module 11 of the Department of Revenue's 2025 Value Adjustment Board Training for learning such content, and further certify that I, personally and without any assistance, have completed and passed the Department of Revenue's corresponding examination. This certification becomes valid only when signed and dated below by the person who completed the training including exam as described above. By my dated signature below, I further attest to my preceding statements. Signature and Certification of 8/15/2025 DATE kil Page 6 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "7" Certification. of TrainingCompletion The Florida Department of Revenue provides this document for a person to certifij that he or she, personally and zoithout any assistance, has completed the DePa rt Pit en t's 2 025 ValueAdjustine nt Board Training, including thcx exam, for R cal Pr LiertU Appraiser Special Ma istrate. I certify that 1, Steven Lawrence Ntr m PersopraIl , and w1thou t any assistance, have carefully reviewed and studied the content of Modules I through 7 and Modu le 11 of the Depart inent o R ev en e's 2025 Value Adjustrt itt Board Tra inin& for lea zing such content, and further certify that 1, personally and ithaut any assistance, have completed and passed the Department of Revenue's corresponding exatnin tiom This certification becomes valid only when signed and dated below by the person who completed the training including exam as described above. By my dated signature below, I f urther attest to my preceding statements. Signature and Certification of DATE 11'i FLORIDA Checklist Exhibit "7" Page 7 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit " 7" Certification of Training Completion The Florida Departinent of Revenue provides this document for a person to cent ifij that he or she, personally and without a ny assistance, has completed the Department's 2015 Value Adjustment Board Training, including the exam, for Ta n-q ible Personal Pro ert y APPraiser S necial Ma istrate. I certify that I, Steven Lawrence Nystrom Personally, and without any assistance, have carefu I ly reviewed and studied the content of ModuIes 1 through 5, Module 7 (part I only), 8, and 11 of the Department of R e v euue's 2025 Value Adjust ent Board Trai ni ng for le am ing such content, and further certify that 1, personally and without any assist nee, have completed and passed the D epartinent of R evenue's corresponding ex amina Lion. This certification becomes valid only when signed and dated below by the person who completed the training including exam as described above. By my dated signature below, I further attest to my preceding statements. T Signature and Ceftif ication of DATE 3 r FLORIDA Checklist Exhibit " 7" Page 8 of 8 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Tax District 308 Value Adjustment Board Collier County, Florida Scheduled Hearings City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 12/31/2025 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID DOR_01 2025-00247 50940011222 Total Hearings Scheduled: 1 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 ASHKENAZ USA LLC $935,608 $662,246 Page 1 of 1 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 1 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" City of Marco Island Value Adjustment Board Carol McDermott Collier County, Florida 50 Bald Eagle Drive FL 34145 Scheduled Hearings Marco Island, City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 12/31/2025 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name Hearing1rime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00013 57656360008 RICH ADAMS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 ADAMS, RICHARD JAMES $4,026,574 $4,026,574 DOR 01 2025-00458 64614080009 BAYATLAS PROPERTIES INC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 BAY ATLAS PROPERTIES INC $2,564,171 $2,201,830 DOR 9 2025-00573 56794600003 GERALD & NANCY DUFRESNE 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DUFRESNE FAMILY TRUST $1,326,586 $1,326,586 DOR 01 2025-00101 56933880008 JARO E BIJAK LIVING TRUST, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 JARO E BIJAK LIVING TRUST, $917,815 $917,815 DOR 01 2025-00102 57858240007 539 SEAGRAPE LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 539 SEAGRAPE LLC $1,532,936 $958,959 DOR 01 2025-00620 57935360004 JDYCMY HOLDINGS LLC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 JDYCMY HOLDINGS LLC $4,858,382 $4,777,011 DOR-01 2025-00272 56930640005 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL $2,255,634 $2,255,634 DOR 01 2025-00204 74137000006 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIZ, SARA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIZ, SARA $494,832 $494,832 DOR-01 2025-00248 74136600009 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIX, SARA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIX, SARA $454,274 $419,740 DOR-01 2025-00533 56317101248 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 MERCURIO, VITO, LAURA $2,546,850 $2,546,850 DOR-01 2025-00621 57808280004 JAMES GLENN TURNER TRUST 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 JAMES GLENN TURNER TRUST $4,986,853 $4,456,252 DOR-01 2025-00260 58055320004 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GSR 1 LLC $1,262,906 $1,262,906 DOR-01 2025-00261 57923080008 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GSR 1 LLC $3,334,719 $3,053,147 DOR-01 2025-00263 56783360008 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 KRGSR HOLDINGS LLC $1,318,817 $953,700 DOR-01 2025-00540 29606000061 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 DOR-01 2025-00540 29606000265 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $345,020 $345,020 DOR-01 2025-00540 29606000469 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $316,090 $316,090 DOR-01 2025-00540 29606000663 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,090 $298,090 DOR-01 2025-00540 29606000867 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $350,020 $350,020 DOR-01 2025-00540 29606001060 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 DOR-01 2025-00540 29606001264 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $303,090 $303,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001468 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $443,190 $443,190 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000087 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $343,020 $343,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000281 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000485 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 1 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 2 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00540 2025-00540 2025-00540 Parcel ID 29606000689 29606000883 29606001086 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, Market Value $308,020 $359,825 $361,825 Taxable Value $308,020 $359,825 $361,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001280 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,020 $293,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000100 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000304 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,090 $295,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000508 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $347,020 $347,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000702 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $318,090 $318,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000906 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001109 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,020 $352,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001303 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $303,090 $303,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000126 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000320 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,455 $299,455 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000524 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000728 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $358,825 $358,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000922 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $290,020 $290,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001125 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $361,825 $361,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001329 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000142 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $344,020 $344,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000346 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $315,090 $315,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000540 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,090 $297,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000744 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $349,020 $349,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000948 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001141 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001345 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $213,600 $213,600 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000168 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000362 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,090 $356,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000566 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $307,020 $307,020 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 2 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 3 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00540 2025-00540 2025-00540 Parcel ID 29606000760 29606000964 29606001167 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, Market Value $358,825 $360,825 $292,020 Taxable Value $358,825 $360,825 $292,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001361 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000184 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,090 $294,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000388 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $346,020 $346,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000582 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $317,090 $317,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000786 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,090 $299,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000980 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $351,020 $351,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001183 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001387 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $304,090 $304,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000207 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,455 $298,455 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000401 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $355,825 $355,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000605 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000809 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $309,020 $309,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001002 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $360,825 $360,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001206 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $221,000 $221,000 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001400 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,020 $294,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000223 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $314,090 $314,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000427 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,090 $296,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000621 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $348,020 $348,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000825 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $319,090 $319,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001028 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001222 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $213,600 $213,600 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001426 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $304,090 $304,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000249 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000443 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $306,020 $306,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000647 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 3 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 4 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00540 2025-00540 2025-00540 Parcel ID 29606000841 29606001044 29606001248 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, Market Value $359,825 $291,020 $221,000 Taxable Value $359,825 $291,020 $221,000 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001442 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $443,190 $443,190 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001523 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001727 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,960 $389,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001921 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $390,960 $390,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002140 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $391,960 $391,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002360 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002564 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002768 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002962 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003165 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003369 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003563 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003767 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001549 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001743 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,960 $389,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001947 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $390,960 $390,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002166 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002386 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002580 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002784 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002988 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003181 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003385 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003589 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003783 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 4 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 5 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606001565 29606001769 29606001963 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS Market Value $288,260 $289,260 $290,260 Taxable Value $288,260 $289,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002205 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002409 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002603 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002807 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003000 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003204 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003408 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003602 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003806 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001581 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001785 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001989 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002221 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002425 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002629 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002823 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003026 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003220 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003424 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003628 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003822 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $384,455 $384,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001604 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001808 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002001 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002247 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 5 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 6 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606002441 29606002645 29606002849 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS RESORTS RESORTS Market Value $292,260 $293,260 $294,260 Taxable Value $292,260 $293,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003042 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003246 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003440 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003644 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003848 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001620 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001824 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002027 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002263 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002467 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002661 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002865 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003068 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003262 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003466 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003660 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $399,960 $399,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003864 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001646 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001840 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002043 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002289 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002483 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002687 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002881 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003084 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 6 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 7 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606003288 29606003482 29606003686 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS RESORTS RESORTS Market Value $296,260 $398,960 $299,260 Taxable Value $296,260 $398,960 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003880 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001662 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001866 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002069 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002302 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002506 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002700 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002904 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003107 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003301 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $397,960 $397,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003505 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $398,960 $398,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003709 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003903 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $385,455 $385,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001688 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001882 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002085 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002328 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002522 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002726 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $394,960 $394,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002920 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $395,960 $395,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003123 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $396,960 $396,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003327 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $397,960 $397,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003521 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003725 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003929 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 7 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 8 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606001701 29606001905 29606002108 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS Market Value $288,260 $289,260 $290,260 Taxable Value $288,260 $289,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002344 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002548 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002742 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $394,960 $394,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002946 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $395,960 $395,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003149 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $396,960 $396,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003343 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003547 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003741 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003945 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003961 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003987 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $386,455 $386,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004009 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004025 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004041 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004067 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $387,455 $387,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004083 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004106 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004122 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004148 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,455 $388,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004164 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004180 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004203 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004229 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,455 $389,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004245 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004261 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 8 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 9 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606004287 29606004300 29606004326 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, Market Value $299,295 $390,455 $300,295 Taxable Value $299,295 $390,455 $300,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004342 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004368 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004384 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $391,455 $391,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004407 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004423 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004449 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004465 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $392,455 $392,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002124 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $391,960 $391,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002182 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000061 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000265 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $345,020 $345,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000469 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $316,090 $316,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000663 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,090 $298,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000867 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $350,020 $350,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001060 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001264 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $303,090 $303,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001468 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $443,190 $443,190 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000087 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $343,020 $343,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000281 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000485 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000689 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $308,020 $308,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000883 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $359,825 $359,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001086 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $361,825 $361,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001280 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,020 $293,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000100 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 9 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 10 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00540 2025-00540 2025-00540 Parcel ID 29606000304 29606000508 29606000702 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, Market Value $295,090 $347,020 $318,090 Taxable Value $295,090 $347,020 $318,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000906 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001109 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,020 $352,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001303 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $303,090 $303,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000126 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000320 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,455 $299,455 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000524 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000728 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $358,825 $358,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000922 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $290,020 $290,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001125 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $361,825 $361,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001329 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000142 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $344,020 $344,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000346 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $315,090 $315,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000540 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,090 $297,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000744 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $349,020 $349,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000948 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001141 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001345 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $213,600 $213,600 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000168 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000362 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,090 $356,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000566 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $307,020 $307,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000760 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $358,825 $358,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000964 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $360,825 $360,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001167 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $292,020 $292,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001361 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000184 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,090 $294,090 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 10 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 11 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00540 2025-00540 2025-00540 Parcel ID 29606000388 29606000582 29606000786 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, 1082-0300-00, Market Value $346,020 $317,090 $299,090 Taxable Value $346,020 $317,090 $299,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000980 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $351,020 $351,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001183 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001387 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $304,090 $304,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000207 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,455 $298,455 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000401 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $355,825 $355,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000605 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000809 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $309,020 $309,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001002 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $360,825 $360,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001206 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $221,000 $221,000 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001400 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,020 $294,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000223 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $314,090 $314,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000427 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,090 $296,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000621 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $348,020 $348,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000825 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $319,090 $319,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001028 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001222 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $213,600 $213,600 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001426 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $304,090 $304,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000249 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000443 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $306,020 $306,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000647 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000841 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $359,825 $359,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001044 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $291,020 $291,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001248 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $221,000 $221,000 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001442 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $443,190 $443,190 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001523 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 11 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 12 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606001727 29606001921 29606002140 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS Market Value $389,960 $390,960 $391,960 Taxable Value $389,960 $390,960 $391,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002360 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002564 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002768 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002962 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003165 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003369 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003563 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003767 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001549 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001743 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,960 $389,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001947 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $390,960 $390,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002166 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002386 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002580 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002784 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002988 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003181 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003385 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003589 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003783 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001565 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001769 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001963 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002205 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002409 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 12 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 13 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606002603 29606002807 29606003000 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS RESORTS RESORTS Market Value $293,260 $294,260 $295,260 Taxable Value $293,260 $294,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003204 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003408 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003602 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003806 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001581 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001785 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001989 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002221 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002425 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002629 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002823 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003026 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003220 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003424 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003628 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003822 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $384,455 $384,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001604 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001808 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002001 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002247 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002441 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002645 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002849 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003042 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003246 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 13 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 14 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606003440 29606003644 29606003848 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, Market Value $297,260 $298,260 $294,295 Taxable Value $297,260 $298,260 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001620 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001824 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002027 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002263 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002467 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002661 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002865 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003068 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003262 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003466 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003660 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $399,960 $399,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003864 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001646 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001840 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002043 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002289 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002483 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002687 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002881 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003084 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003288 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003482 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $398,960 $398,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003686 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003880 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001662 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 14 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 15 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606001866 29606002069 29606002302 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS Market Value $289,260 $290,260 $291,260 Taxable Value $289,260 $290,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002506 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002700 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002904 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003107 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003301 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $397,960 $397,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003505 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $398,960 $398,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003709 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003903 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $385,455 $385,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001688 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001882 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002085 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002328 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002522 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002726 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $394,960 $394,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002920 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $395,960 $395,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003123 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $396,960 $396,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003327 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $397,960 $397,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003521 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003725 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003929 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001701 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001905 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002108 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002344 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002548 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 15 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 16 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_01 DOR_01 DOR_01 Petition # 2025-00570 2025-00570 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606002742 29606002946 29606003149 Notice Name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. HearingTime 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM AM AM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS Market Value $394,960 $395,960 $396,960 Taxable Value $394,960 $395,960 $396,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003343 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003547 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003741 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003945 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003961 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003987 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $386,455 $386,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004009 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004025 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004041 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004067 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $387,455 $387,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004083 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004106 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004122 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004148 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,455 $388,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004164 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004180 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004203 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004229 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,455 $389,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004245 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004261 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004287 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004300 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $390,455 $390,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004326 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004342 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004368 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 16 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 17 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004384 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004407 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004423 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004449 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004465 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002124 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002182 Total Hearings Scheduled: 16 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9;00AM to 11:00AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $391,455 $391,455 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00AM to 11:00AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00AM to 11:00AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00AM to 11:00AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $392,455 $392,455 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00AM to 11:00AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $391,960 $391,960 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00AM to 11:00AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 Page 17 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 18 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" City of Naples Value Adjustment Board Stefan Massol Collier County, Florida 735 Eighth St. S. FL 34102 Scheduled Hearings Naples, City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 12/31/2025 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name Hearing1rime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00044 07040000607 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HELIOS COLLIERS LLC, %ADLER $5,295,937 $5,295,937 DOR 01 2025-00047 07040002702 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HELIOS COLLIERS LLC, %ADLER $7,668,241 $7,668,241 DOR 01 2025-00045 07040002003 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HELIOS COLLIERS LLC, %ADLER $6,627,024 $6,627,024 DOR 01 2025-00046 07040002605 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HELIOS COLLIERS LLC, %ADLER $3,919,521 $3,919,521 DOR 01 2025-00028 05830290425 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 IRC CAPITAL LLC $467,190 $436,354 DOR 01 2025-00029 11380280005 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 IR MANAGEMENT LLC $388,800 $388,800 DOR-01 2025-00529 12931200006 SETH LUBIN, ESQ 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LASNER LIVING TRUST $3,862,359 $3,862,359 DOR 01 2025-00249 01831320000 PROPERTYTAX 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 1795 GORDON LLC, %TOM $16,505,204 $16,194,725 DOR-01 2025-00030 17012520008 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 DVM PROPERTY LLC $25,528,326 $23,649,621 DOR-01 2025-00479 17010360008 NATHAN MANDLER 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 PAUL S KAPLAN FAMILY TRUST $12,135,958 $9,914,065 DOR-01 2025-00432 14017360004 DIEGO, PABLO PATRICIA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DIEGO, PABLO PATRICIA $10,263,080 $10,212,358 DOR-01 2025-00532 19463000023 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 SILVER PALMS LOT 1 LLC $6,263,133 $5,739,562 DOR-01 2025-00536 14000280007 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 GF HOLDINGS NAPLES LLC, % $22,640,918 $18,509,032 DOR-01 2025-00031 17915000007 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TAMIAMI REAL ESTATE LP $3,810,667 $3,773,681 DOR-01 2025-00004 20853750082 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 VENETIAN CONDO LLC $2,150,320 $2,144,907 DOR-01 2025-00409 14151480002 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 477 3RD ST N LLC $7,728,864 $5,545,400 DOR-01 2025-00410 17012640001 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 JEFFREYA ISHBIA TRUST $20,939,189 $20,939,189 DOR-01 2025-00607 16961520008 DELLAPINA, JEFF SHERYL 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DELLAPINA, JEFF SHERYL $32,649,443 $31,495,296 DOR-01 2025-00459 14022880003 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 FLOERSCH, RICHARD R $6,876,747 $5,264,986 DOR 01 2025-00467 16811560008 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 BARRETT, JOHN F EILEEN W $22,908,986 $21,137,163 DOR-01 2025-00609 14023680008 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 DENAULT, CHRISTINE F $6,682,564 $6,631,842 DOR 01 2025-00611 16961600009 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SMALL, DAVID B ROBIN E $19,724,553 $18,552,249 DOR 01 2025-00471 12986400000 KATHY L BIGHAM REV TRUST 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 KATHY L BIGHAM REV TRUST $10,069,880 $10,069,880 Total Hearings Scheduled: 23 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 1 of 1 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 19 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Unincorporated Value Adjustment Board Chris Johnson Collier County, Florida 3299 Tamiami Tr E, 2nd Floor Scheduled Hearings Naples, FL 34112 City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 12/31/2025 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00006 22455701521 CHENETTE REV TRUST 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CHENETTE REV TRUST $967,990 $539,816 DOR 01 2025-00059 29505008902 CURRAN, JOE LINDA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 CURRAN, JOE LINDA $1,090,303 $1,090,303 DOR 01 2025-00091 62642200002 TINEL, ULKU RIMMA R 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TINEL, ULKU RIMMA R $1,136,672 $1,136,395 DOR 04 2025-00568 24930400002 BARTO, SABIN 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 BARTO, SABIN $713,124 $713,124 DOR 04 2025-00009 67965022001 SHAINA STAHL, ESQ 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 CAPRI W TIC LLC $23,387,967 $175,435 DOR 04 2025-00010 00197960008 SHAINA STAHL, ESQ 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 WINDSONG CLUB APTS LLC $11,114,523 $2,556,340 DOR_11 2025-00011 52556000382 CHASE, CAROL Q JEFFREY E 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CHASE, CAROL Q JEFFREY E $283,704 $283,704 DOR 01 2025-00100 00283400003 MATEESCU, ADRIAN 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MATEESCU, ADRIAN $4,766,200 $4,715,478 DOR 01 2025-00133 25117504788 GRAHAM, JAMES DEBORAH 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 GRAHAM, JAMES DEBORAH $1,273,594 $607,592 DOR-01 2025-00202 41827680002 PAIR, NICHOLAS G, MAUREEN 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 PAIR, NICHOLAS G, MAUREEN $875,298 $875,298 DOR-01 2025-00457 36864600102 BAYATLAS PROPERTIES INC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 4871 LLC $1,268,924 $1,199,299 DOR-01 2025-00021 00155000007 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TIARA REAL ESTATE CO LLC $26,742,133 $26,742,133 DOR-01 2025-00022 00155040009 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TIARA REAL ESTATE CO LLC $1,172,244 $1,172,244 DOR-01 2025-00024 00242360003 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 NAPLES J AUTOMOTIVE MGMT $12,640,194 $12,640,194 DOR-01 2025-00027 00256360507 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 JAZ AUTOMOTIVE PROPERTIES $12,521,567 $12,521,567 DOR-01 2025-00035 48000001029 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $133,560 $133,560 DOR-01 2025-00036 48000001061 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $135,660 $135,660 DOR-01 2025-00037 48000001087 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $144,330 $144,330 DOR-01 2025-00475 00308760000 MICHAEL CLARK 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CLARK, MICHAEL D NATALIEA $1,154,310 $1,103,588 DOR 01 2025-00526 74937501802 HORTH, EMILY WESLEY 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HORTH, EMILY WESLEY $993,760 $943,038 DOR 01 2025-00617 40751880102 MONICA SABLON FOR 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 KHARITONENKOV, ALEXEI, HUA $158,568 $158,568 DOR 01 2025-00618 40751880005 MONICA SABLON FOR 11:00AMto 1:OOPM 9 KHARITONENKOV, ALEXEI, HUA $96,688 $96,688 DOR 01 2025-00619 39384960002 MONICA SABLON FOR 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 KHARITONENKOV, ALEXEL, HUA $483,201 $387,928 DOR 01 2025-00629 38451120006 KUHL, DAVID D 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 KUHL, DAVID D $4,177,001 $4,177,001 DOR 04 2025-00574 63944000080 STARABILITY FNDN INC 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 STARABILITY FNDN INC $1,463,368 $1,463,368 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 1 of 3 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 20 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type DOR_9 DOR_9 DOR_9 Petition # 2025-00268 2025-00575 2025-00577 Parcel ID 64703002820 73246000341 76960002648 Notice Name GERMAIN, KAREEN LAWRENCE F GLICK LIVING LEVY REIS, IGOR HearingTime 9;00AM to 11:00 11:00 AM to 1:00 1:00 PM to 3:00 AM PM PM Room 9 9 9 Owner Name GERMAIN, KAREEN LAWRENCE F GLICK LIVING LEVY REIS, IGOR Market Value $339,330 $1,531,291 $3,064,760 Taxable Value $288,608 $1,480,569 $3,014,038 DOR_9 2025-00673 72650015185 JAMES L. SAVAIANO 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CHAND, ROBIN P $466,507 $415,785 DOR_01 2025-00122 55050760002 MCDONNELL, JOHN J 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MCDONNELL, JOHN J $352,183 $90,069 DOR_01 2025-00123 55050800001 MCDONNELL, JOHN J 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MCDONNELL, JOHN J $277,477 $77,213 DOR 01 2025-00124 55051320001 MCDONNELL, JOHN J 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 MCDONNELL, JOHN J $256,133 $71,762 DOR 01 2025-00236 22510009809 SUSAN D FAWCETT REV TRUST 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SUSAN D FAWCETT REV TRUST $6,124,504 $5,566,664 DOR 01 2025-00264 27587440001 FYHR, SVEN MAGNUS PAULA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 FYHR, SVEN MAGNUS PAULA $2,858,900 $2,776,995 DOR 01 2025-00402 24630040005 MARTIN J BESKOW, OWNER OF 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 MJB BONITA PROPERTIES LLC $872,051 $872,051 DOR 01 2025-00569 38450420008 SMALL BROTHERS LLC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SMALL BROTHERS LLC $2,149,282 $2,149,282 DOR 01 2025-00571 59937002546 MASTRIANNI, JOHN J, MARY 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 MASTRIANNI, JOHN J, MARY $1,241,728 $1,191,006 DOR 01 2025-00613 76715004024 FITZPATRICK, BRIAN M DONNA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 FITZPATRICK, BRIAN M DONNAJ $678,873 $678,873 DOR 01 2025-00615 22597010358 WALLEN, DAVID W JUDY L 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 WALLEN, DAVID W JUDY L $978,167 $892,173 DOR 01 2025-00631 70035507207 DAVID AND LAURA HANSMANN 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 HANSMANN, DAVID P LAURA G $306,876 $262,933 DOR_01 2025-00134 38102640000 DDL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LP 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DDL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LP $1,222,221 $1,222,221 DOR_01 2025-00235 27589000009 WILSON, PETER J KATHRYN P 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WILSON, PETER J KATHRYN P $5,454,268 $4,539,860 DOR_01 2025-00271 36316321007 ANDRESVENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WACHOVIA BANK, % THOMSON $1,591,708 $1,429,859 DOR_01 2025-00273 66261901021 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TAMI LLC, %WELLS FARGO $1,862,061 $1,862,061 DOR_01 2025-00274 23945020054 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 SOUTHTRUST BK OF SW $1,561,109 $1,561,109 DOR_01 2025-00275 63518000102 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 WACHOVIA BANK, % THOMSON $1,232,349 $1,232,349 DOR_25 2025-00678 63944000103 STARABILITY FNDN INC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 STARABILITY FNDN INC $7,275,341 $7,275,341 DOR_01 2025-00537 59960003486 MIFFLIN, DENISE L, FREDERICK 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 MIFFLIN, DENISE L, FREDERICK J $3,749,080 $1,937,108 DOR_01 2025-00084 33155000029 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 BCHD PARTNERS II LLC, C/O $10,717,405 $10,717,405 DOR_01 2025-00033 34595004040 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 JAZ AUTOMOTIVE PROPERTIES $2,336,040 $2,141,370 DOR_01 2025-00087 48000001045 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $141,525 $141,525 DOR_01 2025-00291 61560000084 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CAMELOT OF NAPLES LLC, % $4,744,106 $4,506,218 DOR_25 2025-00678 63944000103 STARABILITY FNDN INC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 STARABILITY FNDN INC $7,275,341 $7,275,341 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Page 2 of 3 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 21 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID DOR_01 2025-00315 00157160000 DOR_01 2025-00321 21842600168 DOR_01 2025-00002 79322080001 DOR_01 2025-00241 69220000766 DOR_01 2025-00019 51565000756 DOR_01 2025-00614 76960008943 DOR_01 2025-00342 00281840005 DOR_01 2025-00348 31055001007 DOR_01 2025-00349 76710010026 DOR_01 2025-00403 59960201220 DOR_01 2025-00404 59960200302 DOR_01 2025-00405 25190000186 DOR_01 2025-00406 27860000184 DOR_01 2025-00407 59960201165 DOR_01 2025-00408 59960201149 DOR_01 2025-00468 24769906324 DOR_01 2025-00629 38451120006 DOR_01 2025-00111 00198560009 DOR_01 2025-00112 00282520007 DOR_01 2025-00113 67410000808 DOR_01 2025-00114 00293400006 DOR_01 2025-00120 24745001065 DOR_01 2025-00476 00438680209 DOR_01 2025-00476 00438680209 Total Hearings Scheduled: 74 12/6/2025 3:39:08PM Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9;00AM to 11:00 AM 9 NAPLES CHW LLC $6,285,188 $5,037,391 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 ALD NFL LLC $5,942,183 $5,942,183 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 GERBERDING,MATTHIAS, $1,411,875 $1,411,875 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 GAZEBO OVERSEAS LTD, % IRC $6,142,500 $6,088,094 TRINH, CECILIA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 TRINH, CECILIA $346,720 $204,293 MCCABE, NANCY 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 MCCABE, NANCY $2,678,300 $2,627,578 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC, $7,408,755 $6,454,983 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TERRACINA LLC $17,638,337 $17,638,337 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TERRACINA II LLC $8,460,383 $8,460,383 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $1,517,604 $194,193 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $1,378,440 $194,193 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $1,257,714 $168,375 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $2,492,874 $648,903 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 LUCARNO 2 LLC $1,848,996 $194,193 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 LUCARNO 2 LLC $1,375,380 $194,193 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WRIGHT, DANA $840,436 $840,436 KUHL, DAVID D 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 KUHL, DAVID D $4,177,001 $4,177,001 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TGM MALIBU LAKES LLC $73,382,383 $66,280,601 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TGM BERMUDA ISLAND INC $65,701,933 $63,168,556 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 TARGET CORPORATION, % $13,008,472 $13,008,472 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SOUTHWIND VILLAGE MHC LLC $11,854,411 $9,963,565 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TARGET CORPORATION T-2063, $16,770,155 $16,770,155 NATHAN MANDLER 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 COL PLAZA REALTY LLC $17,470,771 $17,470,771 NATHAN MANDLER 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 COL PLAZA REALTY LLC $17,470,771 $17,470,771 Page 3 of 3 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 22 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Tax District 308 Value Adjustment Board Collier County, Florida Scheduled Hearings City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 3/3/2026 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name DOR_01 2025-00247 50940011222 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 ASHKENAZ USA LLC Total Hearings Scheduled: 1 Market Value Taxable Value $935,608 $662,246 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 1 of 1 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 23 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" City of Marco Island Value Adjustment Board Carol McDermott Collier County, Florida 50 Bald Eagle Drive Marco Island, FL 34145 Scheduled Hearings City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 3/3/2026 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR_01 2025-00013 57656360008 RICH ADAMS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 ADAMS, RICHARD JAMES $4,026,574 $4,026,574 DOR_01 2025-00101 56933880008 JARO E BIJAK LIVING TRUST, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 JARO E BIJAK LIVING TRUST, $917,815 $917,815 DOR_01 2025-00102 57858240007 539 SEAGRAPE LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 539 SEAGRAPE LLC $1,532,936 $958,959 DOR_01 2025-00204 74137000006 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIZ, SARA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIZ, SARA $494,832 $494,832 DOR_9 2025-00573 56794600003 GERALD & NANCY DUFRESNE 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DUFRESNE FAMILY TRUST $1,326,586 $1,326,586 DOR 01 20 DOR 01 2025-00248 74136600009 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIX, SARA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GIRO, EDUARDO FELIX, SARA $454,274 $419,740 DOR 01 2025-00260 58055320004 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GSR 1 LLC $1,260,340 $1,260,340 DOR 01 2025-00261 57923080008 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 GSR 1 LLC $3,334,719 $3,053,147 DOR 01 2025-00263 56783360008 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 KRGSR HOLDINGS LLC $1,229,778 $953,700 DOR 01 2025-00272 56930640005 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL $2,255,634 $2,255,634 DOR 01 2025-00458 64614080009 BAY ATLAS PROPERTIES INC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 BAYATLAS PROPERTIES INC $2,564,171 $2,201,830 DOR 01 2025-00533 56317101248 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 MERCURIO, VITO, LAURA $2,546,850 $2,546,850 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000061 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000061 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000265 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $345,020 $345,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000265 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $345,020 $345,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000469 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $316,090 $316,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000469 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $316,090 $316,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000663 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,090 $298,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000663 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,090 $298,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000867 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $350,020 $350,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000867 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $350,020 $350,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001060 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001060 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 1 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 24 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001264 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $303,090 $303,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001264 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $303,090 $303,090 DOR_01 20 , q go DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001468 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $443,190 $443,190 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000087 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $343,020 $343,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000087 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $343,020 $343,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000281 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000281 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000485 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000485 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000689 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $308,020 $308,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000689 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $308,020 $308,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000883 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $359,825 $359,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000883 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $359,825 $359,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001086 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $361,825 $361,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001086 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $361,825 $361,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001280 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,020 $293,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001280 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,020 $293,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000100 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000100 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,825 $352,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000304 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,090 $295,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000304 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,090 $295,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000508 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $347,020 $347,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000508 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $347,020 $347,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000702 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $318,090 $318,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000702 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $318,090 $318,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000906 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000906 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 2 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 25 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001109 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,020 $352,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001109 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $352,020 $352,020 DOR_01 20$980,898 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001303 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $303,090 $303,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000126 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000126 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000320 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,455 $299,455 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000320 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,455 $299,455 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000524 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000524 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,825 $356,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000728 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $358,825 $358,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000728 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $358,825 $358,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000922 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $290,020 $290,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000922 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $290,020 $290,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001125 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $361,825 $361,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001125 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $361,825 $361,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001329 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001329 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000142 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $344,020 $344,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000142 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $344,020 $344,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000346 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $315,090 $315,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000346 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $315,090 $315,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000540 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,090 $297,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000540 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,090 $297,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000744 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $349,020 $349,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000744 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $349,020 $349,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000948 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000948 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,090 $300,090 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 3 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 26 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001141 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001141 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR_01 20W9,688 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001345 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $213,600 $213,600 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000168 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000168 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $353,825 $353,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000362 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,090 $356,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000362 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $356,090 $356,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000566 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $307,020 $307,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000566 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $307,020 $307,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000760 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $358,825 $358,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000760 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $358,825 $358,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000964 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $360,825 $360,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000964 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $360,825 $360,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001167 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $292,020 $292,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001167 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $292,020 $292,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001361 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001361 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $363,825 $363,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000184 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,090 $294,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000184 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,090 $294,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000388 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $346,020 $346,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000388 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $346,020 $346,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000582 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $317,090 $317,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000582 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $317,090 $317,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000786 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,090 $299,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000786 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,090 $299,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000980 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $351,020 $351,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000980 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $351,020 $351,020 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 4 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 27 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001183 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001183 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $302,090 $302,090 DOR_01 20$984,898 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001387 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $304,090 $304,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000207 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,455 $298,455 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000207 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,455 $298,455 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000401 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $355,825 $355,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000401 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $355,825 $355,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000605 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000605 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000809 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $309,020 $309,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000809 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $309,020 $309,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001002 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $360,825 $360,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001002 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $360,825 $360,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001206 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $221,000 $221,000 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001206 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $221,000 $221,000 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001400 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,020 $294,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001400 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,020 $294,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000223 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $314,090 $314,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000223 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $314,090 $314,090 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606000427 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,090 $296,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000427 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,090 $296,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000621 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $348,020 $348,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000621 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $348,020 $348,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000825 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $319,090 $319,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000825 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $319,090 $319,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001028 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001028 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,090 $301,090 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 5 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 28 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001222 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $213,600 $213,600 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001222 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $213,600 $213,600 DOR_01 20$394,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606001426 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $304,090 $304,090 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000249 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000249 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $354,825 $354,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000443 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $306,020 $306,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000443 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $306,020 $306,020 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000647 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000647 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $357,825 $357,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000841 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $359,825 $359,825 DOR_01 2025-00540 29606000841 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $359,825 $359,825 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001044 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $291,020 $291,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001044 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $291,020 $291,020 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001248 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $221,000 $221,000 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001248 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $221,000 $221,000 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001442 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $443,190 $443,190 DOR 01 2025-00540 29606001442 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $443,190 $443,190 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001523 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001523 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001727 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,960 $389,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001727 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,960 $389,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001921 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $390,960 $390,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001921 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $390,960 $390,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002140 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $391,960 $391,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002140 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $391,960 $391,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002360 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002360 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 6 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 29 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002564 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002564 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 20$294,268 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002768 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002962 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002962 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003165 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003165 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003369 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003369 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003563 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003563 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003767 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003767 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001549 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001549 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,960 $388,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001743 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,960 $389,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001743 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,960 $389,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001947 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $390,960 $390,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001947 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $390,960 $390,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002166 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002166 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002386 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002386 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002580 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002580 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002784 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002784 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 7 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 30 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002988 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002988 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 20$296,268 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003181 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003385 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003385 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003589 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003589 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003783 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003783 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001565 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001565 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001769 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001769 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001963 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001963 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002205 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002205 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002409 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002409 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002603 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002603 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002807 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002807 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003000 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003000 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003204 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003204 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 8 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 31 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003408 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003408 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 20$298,268 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003602 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003806 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003806 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $293,295 $293,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001581 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001581 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001785 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001785 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001989 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001989 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002221 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002221 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002425 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002425 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002629 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002629 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002823 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002823 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003026 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003026 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003220 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003220 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003424 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003424 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003628 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003628 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 9 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 32 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003822 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $384,455 $384,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003822 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $384,455 $384,455 DOR_01 20$288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001604 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001808 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001808 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002001 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002001 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002247 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002247 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002441 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002441 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002645 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002645 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002849 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002849 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003042 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003042 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003246 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003246 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003440 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003440 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003644 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003644 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003848 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003848 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001620 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001620 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 10 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 33 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001824 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001824 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 20$298,268 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002027 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002263 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002263 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002467 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002467 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002661 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002661 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002865 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002865 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003068 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003068 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003262 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003262 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003466 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003466 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003660 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $399,960 $399,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003660 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $399,960 $399,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003864 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003864 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001646 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001646 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001840 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001840 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002043 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002043 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 11 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 34 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002289 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002289 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 20$292,268 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002483 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002687 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002687 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002881 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002881 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003084 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003084 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003288 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003288 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $296,260 $296,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003482 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $398,960 $398,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003482 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $398,960 $398,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003686 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003686 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003880 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003880 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $294,295 $294,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001662 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001662 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001866 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001866 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002069 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002069 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002302 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002302 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002506 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002506 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $292,260 $292,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 12 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 35 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002700 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002700 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $293,260 $293,260 DOR_01 20$294,268 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002904 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $294,260 $294,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003107 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003107 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $295,260 $295,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003301 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $397,960 $397,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003301 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $397,960 $397,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003505 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $398,960 $398,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003505 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $398,960 $398,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003709 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003709 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003903 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $385,455 $385,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003903 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $385,455 $385,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001688 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001688 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001882 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001882 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002085 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002085 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002328 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002328 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002522 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002522 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002726 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $394,960 $394,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002726 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $394,960 $394,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002920 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $395,960 $395,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002920 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $395,960 $395,960 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 13 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 36 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003123 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $396,960 $396,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003123 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $396,960 $396,960 DOR_01 20$99i"968 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003327 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $397,960 $397,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003521 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003521 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003725 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003725 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003929 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003929 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001701 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606001701 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $288,260 $288,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001905 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606001905 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $289,260 $289,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002108 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002108 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $290,260 $290,260 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002344 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002344 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $392,960 $392,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002548 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002548 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $393,960 $393,960 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606002742 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $394,960 $394,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002742 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $394,960 $394,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002946 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $395,960 $395,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002946 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $395,960 $395,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003149 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $396,960 $396,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003149 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $396,960 $396,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003343 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003343 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $297,260 $297,260 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 14 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 37 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606003547 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003547 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $298,260 $298,260 DOR_01 20$299,268 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003741 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $299,260 $299,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003945 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003945 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003961 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003961 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $295,295 $295,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003987 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $386,455 $386,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606003987 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $386,455 $386,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004009 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004009 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004025 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004025 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004041 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004041 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $296,295 $296,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004067 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $387,455 $387,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004067 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $387,455 $387,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004083 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004083 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004106 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004106 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004122 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004122 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $297,295 $297,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004148 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,455 $388,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004148 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $388,455 $388,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004164 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004164 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 15 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 38 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004180 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004180 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 20$298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004203 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $298,295 $298,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004229 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,455 $389,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004229 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $389,455 $389,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004245 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004245 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004261 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004261 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004287 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004287 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $299,295 $299,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004300 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $390,455 $390,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004300 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $390,455 $390,455 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004326 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004326 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004342 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004342 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004368 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004368 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $300,295 $300,295 DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004384 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $391,455 $391,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004384 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $391,455 $391,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004407 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004407 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004423 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004423 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004449 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004449 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $301,295 $301,295 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 16 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 39 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR 01 2025-00570 29606004465 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $392,455 $392,455 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606004465 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LAND TRUST NO 1082-0300-00, $392,455 $392,455 DOR_01 20$99q,968 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002124 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $391,960 $391,960 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002182 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00570 29606002182 NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS $291,260 $291,260 DOR_01 2025-00620 57935360004 JDYCMY HOLDINGS LLC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 JDYCMY HOLDINGS LLC $4,858,382 $4,777,011 DOR_01 2025-00621 57808280004 JAMES GLENN TURNER TRUST 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 JAMES GLENN TURNER TRUST $4,986,853 $4,456,252 Total Hearings Scheduled: 17 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 17 of 17 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 40 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" City of Naples Value Adjustment Board Stefan Massol Collier County, Florida 735 Eighth St. S. Naples, FL 34102 Scheduled Hearings City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 3/3/2026 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR_01 2025-00004 20853750082 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 VENETIAN CONDO LLC $2,150,320 $2,144,907 DOR_01 2025-00028 05830290425 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 IRC CAPITAL LLC $467,190 $436,354 DOR_01 2025-00029 11380280005 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 IR MANAGEMENT LLC $388,800 $388,800 DOR_01 2025-00030 17012520008 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 DVM PROPERTY LLC $25,528,326 $23,649,621 DOR 01 2025-00031 17915000007 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TAMIAMI REAL ESTATE LP $3,810,667 $3,773,681 DOR 01 20 DOR 01 2025-00045 07040002003 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HELIOS COLLIERS LLC, %ADLER $6,627,024 $6,627,024 DOR 01 2025-00046 07040002605 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HELIOS COLLIERS LLC, % ADLER $3,919,521 $3,919,521 DOR 01 2025-00047 07040002702 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HELIOS COLLIERS LLC, %ADLER $7,668,241 $7,668,241 DOR 01 2025-00092 19135001402 COJANU, MARIUS COSTIN, IRINA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 COJANU, MARIUS COSTIN, IRINA $2,668,074 $1,585,504 DOR 01 2025-00249 01831320000 PROPERTYTAX 9:00AM to 11:00AM 9 1795 GORDON LLC, %TOM $16,505,204 $16,194,725 DOR 01 2025-00409 14151480002 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 477 3RD ST N LLC $5,796,648 $5,545,400 DOR 01 2025-00410 17012640001 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 JEFFREYA ISHBIA TRUST $20,939,189 $20,939,189 DOR_01 2025-00432 14017360004 DIEGO, PABLO PATRICIA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DIEGO, PABLO PATRICIA $10,263,080 $10,212,358 DOR_01 2025-00459 14022880003 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 FLOERSCH, RICHARD R $6,876,747 $5,264,986 DOR_01 2025-00467 16811560008 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 BARRETT, JOHN F EILEEN W $22,908,986 $21,137,163 DOR_01 2025-00471 12986400000 KATHY L BIGHAM REV TRUST 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 KATHY L BIGHAM REV TRUST $10,069,880 $10,069,880 DOR_01 2025-00479 17010360008 NATHAN MANDLER 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 PAUL S KAPLAN FAMILY TRUST $12,135,958 $9,914,065 DOR_01 2025-00530 11180360002 JAMES F MOREY 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL $2,934,778 $1,641,429 DOR_01 2025-00531 11180400001 JAMES F MOREY 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL, ------------ $19,028,699 $19,028,699 DOR_01 2025-00529 12931200006 SETH LUBIN, ESQ 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LASNER LIVING TRUST $3,862,359 $3,862,359 DOR_01 2025-00532 19463000023 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 SILVER PALMS LOT 1 LLC $6,263,133 $5,739,562 DOR_01 2025-00536 14000280007 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 GF HOLDINGS NAPLES LLC, % $22,640,918 $18,509,032 DOR_01 2025-00607 16961520008 DELLAPINA, JEFF SHERYL 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DELLAPINA, JEFF SHERYL $32,649,443 $31,495,296 Total Hearings Scheduled: 24 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 1 of 1 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 41 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Unincorporated Value Adjustment Board Chris Johnson 3299 Tamiami Tr E, 2nd Floor Collier County, Florida Naples, FL 34112 Scheduled Hearings City Notice 2025 Tax Roll From 10/15/2025 12:00:00 AM to 3/3/2026 12:00:00 AM Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR_01 2025-00237 25500000954 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 ASHKENAZ USA LLC $2,501,201 $2,374,650 DOR_01 2025-00239 00169160001 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 8901 NAPLES INC $2,823,775 $2,823,775 DOR_01 2025-00241 69220000766 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 GAZEBO OVERSEAS LTD, % IRC $6,142,500 $6,088,094 DOR_01 2025-00244 22493000080 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 BAER S FURNITURE CO INC $9,421,650 $7,849,900 DOR_01 2025-00246 21961000351 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CANIZO LLC $10,118,773 $10,114,014 DOR 01 20 DOR 01 2025-00006 22455701521 CHENETTE REV TRUST 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CHENETTE REV TRUST $967,990 $539,816 DOR 01 2025-00008 71750000305 AMG PROPERTY TAX 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SHAWNICK NAPLES LLC, % $15,169,872 $14,224,521 DOR 04 2025-00009 67965022001 SHAINA STAHL, ESQ 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 CAPRI W TIC LLC $23,387,967 $175,435 DOR 04 2025-00010 00197960008 SHAINASTAHL, ESQ 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 WINDSONG CLUB APTS LLC $11,114,523 $2,556,340 DOR 11 2025-00011 52556000382 CHASE, CAROL Q JEFFREY E 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CHASE, CAROL Q JEFFREY E $283,704 $283,704 DOR 01 2025-00019 51565000756 TRINH, CECILIA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 TRINH, CECILIA $346,720 $204,293 DOR 01 2025-00059 29505008902 CURRAN, JOE LINDA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 CURRAN, JOE LINDA $1,090,303 $1,090,303 DOR_01 2025-00021 00155000007 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TIARA REAL ESTATE CO LLC $26,742,133 $26,742,133 DOR_01 2025-00022 00155040009 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TIARA REAL ESTATE CO LLC $1,172,244 $1,172,244 DOR_01 2025-00024 00242360003 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 NAPLES J AUTOMOTIVE MGMT $12,640,194 $12,640,194 DOR_01 2025-00027 00256360507 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 JAZ AUTOMOTIVE PROPERTIES $12,521,567 $12,521,567 DOR_01 2025-00033 34595004040 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 JAZ AUTOMOTIVE PROPERTIES $2,336,040 $2,141,370 DOR_01 2025-00035 48000001029 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $133,560 $133,560 DOR_01 2025-00036 48000001061 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $135,660 $135,660 DOR_01 2025-00037 48000001087 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $144,330 $144,330 DOR_01 2025-00085 52505031302 BURKHART, RICHARD, BARBARA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 BURKHART, RICHARD, BARBARA $1,577,329 $1,577,329 DOR_01 2025-00084 33155000029 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 BCHD PARTNERS II LLC, C/O $10,717,405 $10,717,405 DOR_01 2025-00087 48000001045 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 INTERNATIONAL REALTY, $141,525 $141,525 DOR_01 2025-00091 62642200002 TINEL, ULKU RIMMA R 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TINEL, ULKU RIMMA R $1,136,672 $1,136,395 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 1 of 5 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 42 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR_01 2025-00133 25117504788 GRAHAM, JAMES DEBORAH 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 GRAHAM, JAMES DEBORAH $1,273,594 $607,592 DOR_01 2025-00100 00283400003 MATEESCU, ADRIAN 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MATEESCU, ADRIAN $4,766,200 $4,715,478 DOR_01 2025 8819' oo 198568889 FLANAGAN AGAN BIL- eN 1:06 9.88 AM to 11.08 AN! 9 T6PoI MALIBU LAKES LLG $F9,389,989 $66,288,68q DOR_01 2025-00112 00282520007 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TGM BERMUDA ISLAND INC $65,701,933 $63,168,556 DOR_01 2025-00113 67410000808 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 TARGET CORPORATION, % $13,008,472 $13,008,472 DOR_01 2025-00120 24745001065 FLANAGAN BILTON LLC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TARGET CORPORATION T-2063, $16,770,155 $16,770,155 DOR_01 2025-00122 55050760002 MCDONNELL, JOHN J 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MCDONNELL, JOHN J $352,183 $90,069 DOR_01 2025-00123 55050800001 MCDONNELL, JOHN J 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 MCDONNELL, JOHN J $277,477 $77,213 DOR_01 2025-00124 55051320001 MCDONNELL, JOHN J 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 MCDONNELL, JOHN J $256,133 $71,762 DOR_01 2025-00134 38102640000 DDL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LP 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 DDL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LP $1,222,221 $1,222,221 DOR_01 2025-00155 00402404013 BRIAN DEPOTTER 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 OHM FLORIDA LLC $3,627,746 $3,448,375 DOR_01 2025-00162 67080680001 BRIAN DEPOTTER 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 STUART PETRO HOLDINGS LLC $1,535,015 $1,174,174 DOR 01 2025-00163 66760012725 BRIAN DEPOTTER 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 GILL SELECTION II FLORIDA LP, % $2,547,658 $2,504,150 DOR 01 2025-00164 21842600126 BRIAN DEPOTTER 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 MEI, RONALD F $3,539,917 $3,539,917 DOR 01 2025-00166 77020006800 BRIAN DEPOTTER 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 2016 TRADE CENTER WAY LLC $3,091,660 $3,091,660 DOR 01 2025-00167 77020001708 BRIAN DEPOTTER 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 SNS II OF NAPLES, LLC $1,514,993 $1,514,993 DOR 01 2025-00168 77020001601 BRIAN DEPOTTER 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 SNS OF NAPLES, LLC $1,417,012 $1,417,012 DOR 01 2025-00189 66679090951 BRIAN DEPOTTER 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 PELICAN ISLE YACHT CLUB INC $8,264,659 $8,264,659 DOR 01 2025-00190 66679090906 BRIAN DEPOTTER 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 PELICAN ISLE YACHT CLUB INC $2,723,981 $1,366,853 DOR 01 2025-00191 66679090854 BRIAN DEPOTTER 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 PELICAN ISLE YACHT CLUB INC $10,570,654 $6,484,369 DOR 01 2025-00202 41827680002 PAIR, NICHOLAS G, MAUREEN 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 PAIR, NICHOLAS G, MAUREEN $875,298 $875,298 DOR_01 2025-00225 63045042565 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 COOKE REVOCABLE TRUST $869,163 $869,163 DOR_01 2025-00235 27589000009 WILSON, PETER J KATHRYN P 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WILSON, PETER J KATHRYN P $5,454,268 $4,539,860 DOR_01 2025-00236 22510009809 SUSAN D FAWCETT REV TRUST 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SUSAN D FAWCETT REV TRUST $6,124,504 $5,566,664 DOR_01 2025-00452 00275880000 FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 SAX TR, WILLIAM L, UTD 11-30-93 $4,253,633 $3,514,664 DOR_01 2025-00264 27587440001 FYHR, SVEN MAGNUS PAULA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 FYHR, SVEN MAGNUS PAULA $2,858,900 $2,776,995 DOR_01 2025-00266 00384800007 THOMAS COOTS - PROPERTY 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 STUART FLORIDA PROPERTY LLC $3,416,862 $1,943,801 DOR_9 2025-00268 64703002820 GERMAIN, KAREEN 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 GERMAIN, KAREEN $339,330 $288,608 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 2 of 5 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 43 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR_01 2025-00271 36316321007 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WACHOVIA BANK, % THOMSON $1,591,708 $1,429,859 DOR_01 2025-00273 66261901021 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TAMI LLC, %WELLS FARGO $1,862,061 $1,862,061 DOR_01 2025 882 4 29945828854 A B coo ENGE)EGI'EA i1.88 AId to 1.88 phl 9 2tffI ITRHST BIE 9F SW $9,569�189 $41,8611,4189 DOR_01 2025-00275 63518000102 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 WACHOVIA BANK, % THOMSON $1,232,349 $1,232,349 DOR_01 2025-00291 61560000084 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CAMELOT OF NAPLES LLC, % $4,744,106 $4,506,218 DOR_01 2025-00315 00157160000 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 NAPLES CHW LLC $6,285,188 $5,037,391 DOR_01 2025-00321 21842600168 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 ALD NFL LLC $5,942,183 $5,942,183 DOR_01 2025-00342 00281840005 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC, $7,408,755 $6,454,983 DOR_01 2025-00348 31055001007 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TERRACINA LLC $17,638,337 $17,638,337 DOR_01 2025-00349 76710010026 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 TERRACINA II LLC $8,460,383 $8,460,383 DOR_01 2025-00402 24630040005 MARTIN J BESKOW, OWNER OF 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 MJB BONITA PROPERTIES LLC $872,051 $872,051 DOR_01 2025-00403 59960201220 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $1,365,843 $194,193 DOR 01 2025-00404 59960200302 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $1,240,596 $194,193 DOR 01 2025-00405 25190000186 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $943,285 $168,375 DOR 01 2025-00406 27860000184 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 LB MEDITERRA LLC $2,492,874 $648,903 DOR 01 2025-00407 59960201165 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 LUCARNO 2 LLC $1,664,096 $194,193 DOR 01 2025-00408 59960201149 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 11:00AM to 1:00 PM 9 LUCARNO 2 LLC $1,375,380 $194,193 DOR 01 2025-00436 74445100504 JACOBSON LAW FIRM P.C. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CBYW NAPLES PROPCO LLC, % $7,306,302 $7,306,302 DOR 01 2025-00437 74445101325 JACOBSON LAW FIRM P.C. 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CBYW NAPLES PROPCO LLC, % $100 $100 DOR 01 2025-00441 36316320008 BRUCE STAVITSKY 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 GATOR GOLDEN GATE LLC $13,584,878 $11,470,353 DOR 01 2025-00442 00152240006 SABRINAROBINSON 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 TRIIASSOC LLC $18,018,181 $16,363,010 DOR_01 2025-00444 00196760005 C/O MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP. 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 BLEND -ALL HOTEL DEV INC ETAL $4,325,709 $4,194,097 DOR_01 2025-00456 29331180612 KEITH HOUSTON 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 DP CREEKSIDE ET AL LLC $50,830,055 $50,830,055 DOR_01 2025-00457 36864600102 BAY ATLAS PROPERTIES INC 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 4871 LLC $1,268,924 $1,199,299 DOR_01 2025-00468 24769906324 MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 WRIGHT, DANA $840,436 $840,436 DOR_01 2025-00476 00438680209 NATHAN MANDLER 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 COL PLAZA REALTY LLC $17,470,771 $17,470,771 DOR_01 2025-00476 00438680209 NATHAN MANDLER 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 COL PLAZA REALTY LLC $17,470,771 $17,470,771 DOR_01 2025-00475 00308760000 MICHAELCLARK 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CLARK,MICHAELD NATALIEA $1,154,310 $1,103,588 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 3 of 5 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 44 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR_01 2025-00526 74937501802 HORTH, EMILY WESLEY 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 HORTH, EMILY WESLEY $993,760 $943,038 DOR_01 2025-00564 36180080008 RANDIE YORK O'CONNOR & 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 PACIFICA LAUREL RIDGE LLC, % $13,214,373 $13,214,373 DOR_01 20 , DOR_04 2025-00568 24930400002 BARTO, SABIN 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 BARTO, SABIN $713,124 $713,124 DOR_01 2025-00569 38450420008 SMALL BROTHERS LLC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SMALL BROTHERS LLC $2,149,282 $2,149,282 DOR_01 2025-00571 59937002546 MASTRIANNI, JOHN J, MARY 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 MASTRIANNI, JOHN J, MARY $1,241,728 $1,191,006 DOR_04 2025-00574 63944000080 STARABILITY FNDN INC 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 STARABILITY FNDN INC $1,463,368 $1,463,368 DOR_9 2025-00575 73246000341 LAWRENCE F GLICK LIVING 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 LAWRENCE F GLICK LIVING $1,531,291 $1,480,569 DOR_9 2025-00577 76960002648 LEVY REIS, IGOR 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 LEVY REIS, IGOR $3,064,760 $3,014,038 DOR_01 2025-00615 22597010358 WALLEN, DAVID W JUDY L 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 WALLEN, DAVID W JUDY L $978,167 $892,173 DOR_01 2025-00613 76715004024 FITZPATRICK, BRIAN M DONNA 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 FITZPATRICK, BRIAN M DONNA J $678,873 $678,873 DOR_01 2025-00614 76960008943 MCCABE, NANCY 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 MCCABE, NANCY $2,678,300 $2,627,578 DOR_01 2025-00617 40751880102 MONICA SABLON FOR 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 KHARITONENKOV,ALEXEI, HUA $158,568 $158,568 DOR_01 2025-00618 40751880005 MONICA SABLON FOR 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 KHARITONENKOV, ALEXEI, HUA $96,688 $96,688 DOR01 2025-00619 39384960002 MONICA SABLON FOR 11:00AMto 1:OOPM 9 KHARITONENKOV, ALEXEL, HUA $483,201 $387,928 DOR 01 2025-00622 66760011221 RANDIE YORK OCONNOR AND 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 SEG REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS $4,907,909 $4,907,909 DOR 01 2025-00622 66760011221 RANDIE YORK OCONNOR AND 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 SEG REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS $4,907,909 $4,907,909 DOR 01 2025-00629 38451120006 KUHL, DAVID D 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 KUHL, DAVID D $4,177,001 $4,177,001 DOR 01 2025-00629 38451120006 KUHL, DAVID D 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 KUHL, DAVID D $4,177,001 $4,177,001 DOR 01 2025-00631 70035507207 DAVID AND LAURA HANSMANN 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM 9 HANSMANN, DAVID P LAURA G $306,876 $262,933 DOR 01 2025-00636 21785000058 FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 MC DONALD S CORP, % ADAMS $2,289,913 $1,567,833 DOR_01 2025-00639 59940902523 FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 GULF GATE PLAZA LLC, % $2,168,368 $1,447,502 DOR_01 2025-00642 29520002909 DELTA PROPERTY TAX 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 C ELOVE INC $2,182,529 $1,622,427 DOR_01 2025-00644 37930500009 DELTA PROPERTY TAX 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 NNNREITLP $3,134,111 $1,860,088 DOR_01 2025-00646 63000240001 DELTA PROPERTY TAX 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 NNN TR, INC $2,832,944 $2,039,573 DOR_01 2025-00647 63000320002 DELTA PROPERTY TAX 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 CIRCLE K STORES INC, REAL $2,645,804 $1,986,799 DOR_01 2025-00648 66679700843 DELTA PROPERTY TAX 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM 9 CIRCLE K STORES INC, REAL $3,310,082 $2,768,148 DOR_9 2025-00673 72650015185 JAMES L. SAVAIANO 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 CHAND, ROBIN P $466,507 $415,785 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 4 of 5 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 45 of 46 2025 Collier VAB Checklist Exhibit "8" Petition Type Petition # Parcel ID Notice Name HearingTime Room Owner Name Market Value Taxable Value DOR_9 2025-00673 72650015185 JAMES L. SAVAIANO 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM 9 CHAND, ROBIN P $466,507 $415,785 DOR_25 2025-00678 63944000103 STARABILITY FNDN INC 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 9 STARABILITY FNDN INC $7,275,341 $7,275,341 DOR_25 2025 886FO 'PIG 69944888 G9 o WtR,',oIl:� F , F NBN gg.00 AhI II6q.aaphl 9 STARABILITY FNBN ING $7,975,349 , DOR 20 2025-00684 29306002482 HAUER FAMILY TRUST 10:30AM to 12:30 PM 9 HAUER FAMILY TRUST $1,064,739 $1,009,017 Total Hearings Scheduled: 108 3/2/2026 3:58:57PM Page 5 of 5 Checklist Exhibit "8" Page 46 of 46 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 1weJaztm- 6f - ■ : r fQr Aopraiser.Spg Gial Magistrate Agreemen# #v_r the Value Ad3u§tmgnt Board OVA¢] THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this 12th day of September, 2422, by and between Michael P. Jonas, MAI, AI-GRS/Kova Appraisal & Consulting Services, LLC doing business as Carlson, Norris and Associates hereinafter called the "Appraiser Special Magistrate" authorized to do business in the State of Florida, and the Collier County Value Adjustment Board. consisting of members from the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, members from the District School Board of Collier County, and citizen members appointed by both the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and District School Board of Collier County. hereinafter called the "Value Adjustment Board" (VAB). WITNESSETH; 1. AGREEMENT TERM, This Agreement shall be for a three (3) year period, commencing on the date of contract execution. The Value Adjustment Board {VAB} may, at its discretion and with the consent of the Appraiser Special Magistrate, renew this Agreement under all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement for one (1 ) additional two (2) year period. The VAB shall give the Appraiser Special Magistrate written notice of the VAB's intention to renew this Agreement term prior to the end of this Agreement term then in effect. The VAB, with the guidance and assistance of VAB Administration and the VAB attorney, may extend this Agreement under all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement for up to one hundred and eighty (180) days. The VAB, with the guidance and assistance of VAB Administration and the VAB attorney, shall give the Appraiser Speciai Magistrate written notice of the VAB's intention to extend this Agreement term prior to the end of this Agreement tern then in effect. 2. STATEMENT OF WORK. The Appraiser Special Magistrate shall provide professional services to the Value Adjustment Board in accordance with the terms and conditions of Request for Proposal (RFP) #22-8013, specific to Valuation of Real Property, and the Appraiser Special Magistrate's proposal referred to herein and made an integral part of this Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties and any modifications to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Parties, in compliance with Collier County's Procurement Ordinance. as amended, and the Procurement Procedures in effect at the time such services are authorized. Notwithstanding anything stated herein to the contrary, with regards to drafting and providing recommended decisions, which include findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appraiser Special Magistrate shall provide all recommended decisions to the VAB within ten (10) business days of each hearing date assigned to Appraiser Special Magistrate. Failure of Appraiser Special Magistrate to substantially comply with this requirement shall be considered detrimental to the VAB process, and cause for termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the VAB shall have the right to reduce Appraiser Special Magistrate's invoicing by One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per day (hereinafter referred to as "PENALTY") for each day that Appraiser Special Magistrate fails Page 1 of 6 #22-8013 Appraiser Special Magistrate for the Collier County Value Adjustment $oard (VAB) to complete recommendations pursuant to the time requirements set forth in this Section 2, The PENALTY shall not apply to instances where Appraiser Special Magistrate provides the VAB Clerk with a written explanation of good cause for any delay beyond the expiration of the time requirements set forth in this Section 2. which shall be accompanied by supporting evidence, if necessary. It is the intent for work assignments to be equability distributed between the awarded Appraiser Special Magistrate specific to Valuation of Real Property. 3. COMPENSATION, The VAB shall pay the Appraiser Special Magistrate for the performance of this Agreement on an hourly basis at a rate of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per hour after receipt of an itemized statement of services. The parties hereto will agree to the frequency of any periodic payments. Payment will be made to Appraiser Special Magistrate upon receipt of a proper invoice or statement of hourly services provided and upon approval by the Clerk to the VAB or his designee, and in compliance with Chapter 218, FL Statutes, otherwise known as the "Local Government Prompt Payment Act." The Appraiser Special Magistrate will maintain a record of time for his/her performance under this Agreement and shall submit an invoice to the VAB after completion of all scheduled hearings and recommendations to the VAB. This invoice shall be signed and certified by the Appraiser Special Magistrate as being accurate. Any time required for research and preparation beyond the hours required to conduct hearings shall not exceed twice the number of hours required for hearings without documentation of the need for such additional hours and advance approval by the VAB Attorney or the VAB Clerk. Hours spent for preparation and research in excess of this standard and without advance written approval will be deemed excessive and unreasonable and subject to non-payment. If Appraiser Special Magistrate's office is located outside of Collier County, Appraiser Special Magistrate shall receive reimbursement for travel mileage in accordance with the rates set forth each year by the Internal Revenue Service. The compensation paid to the Appraiser Special Magistrate shall be borne three -fifths (3/5s) by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and two -fifths (2/5s) by the District School Board of Collier County. Appraiser Special Magistrate agrees to pay for ordinary expenses incurred, including; but not limited to. costs of mailing, copies, facsimiles. telephone expenses, document delivery (e.g., FEDEK etc.), and secretarial services. However. the parties hereto may agree to include additional expenses or services in this Agreement by mutual consent. 4. NOTICES. All notices from the VAB to the Appraiser Special Magistrate shall be deemed duly served if mailed or faxed to the Appraiser Special Magistrate at the following address. Michael P. Jonas, MAI, AI-GRS/Carlson, Norris and Associates 9130 Galleria Court, Suite 100 Naples, Florida 34109 Phone: (239) 936-1991 Email: www.cartsonnorris.corin Page 2 of 6 #22-8013 Appraiser Special Magistrate for the Collier County Value Adjustment Board SVAB) All Notices from the Appraiser Special Magistrate to the VAB shall be deemed duly served if mailed or faxed to the Value Adjustment Board at the following address: Clerk to the Value Adjustment Board Administration Building "F" 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401 Naples, FL 34112 Telephone: (239) 252-8399 Fax: (239) 252-8408 Email; vabclerk i),collierclerk.com The Appraiser Special Magistrate and the Value Adjustment Board may change the above stated mailing address at any time upon giving the other party written notification. All notices under this Agreement must be in writing. 5. Nn eA 1_ E 5HIP. Nothing herein contained shall create or be construed as creating a partnership between Collier County Board of County Commissioners or the District School Board of Collier County and the Appraiser Special Magistrate or to constitute the Appraiser Special Magistrate as an agent of Collier County Board of County Commissioners or the District School Board of Collier County. 6. PERMITS: LICENSES: TAXES, In compliance with Section 218.80, F.S.. all permits necessary for the prosecution of the Work shall be obtained by the Appraiser Special Magistrate. Payment for all such permits issued by Collier County and all non -County permits necessary for the prosecution of the 'Work shall be procured and paid for by the Appraiser Special Magistrate. The Appraiser Special Magistrate shall also be solely responsible for payment of any and all taxes levied on the Appraiser Special Magistrate. In addition, the Appraiser Special Magistrate shall comply with all rules, regulations and laws of Collier County; the State of Florida. or the U.S. government now in force or hereafter adopted. The Appraiser Special Magistrate agrees to comply with all laws governing the responsibility of an employer with respect to persons employed by the Appraiser Special Magistrate. Further. in compliance with §119.0701, Florida Statutes which affect Appraiser Special Magistrate's duties and services provided pursuant to this Agreement, Appraiser Special Magistrate further agrees as follows: a. IF APPRAISER SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO THE APPRAISER SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT (239) 252-8399, VABCLERK(a7C0LLIERCLERK.COM AND/OR COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, SUITE 401, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112. b. Appraiser Special Magistrate must comply with all public record laws, including, but not limited to i. Keep and maintain public records required by the VAB to perform the service. Page 3 of 6 #22-8013 Appraiser Special Magistrate for the Collier County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) il. Upon request from the VAB'S custodian of public records, provide the VAB with a copy of the requested records or allow the records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes or as otherwise provided by law. iii. Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law for the duration of this Agreement term and following completion of this Agreement if Appraiser Special Magistrate does not transfer the records to the VAB. iv. Upon completion of this Agreement. transfer, at no cost, to the VAB all public records in possession of Appraiser Special Magistrate or keep and maintain public records required by the VAB to perform the contracted services. If Appraiser Special Magistrate transfers all public records to the VAB upon completion of this Agreement. Appraiser Special Magistrate shall destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. If Appraiser Special Magistrate keeps and maintains public records upon completion of this Agreement, Appraiser Special Magistrate shall meet all applicable requirements for retaining public records. All records stored electronically must be provided to the VAB. upon request from the VAB'S custodian of public records, in a format that is compatible with the information technology systems of the VAB. c. A request to inspect or copy public records relating to VAB'S contract for services must be made directly to the VAB. If the VAB does not possess the requested records; the VAB shall immediately notify Appraiser Special Magistrate of the request, and Appraiser Special Magistrate must provide the records to the VAB or allow the records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time. d. If Appraiser Special Magistrate does not comply with the VAB'S request for records, the VAB shall enforce the provisions of this Agreement, and in the event that Appraiser Special Magistrate fails to provide public records to the VAB within a reasonable time may be subject to penalties under §119.10. Florida Statutes and further civil action, including any attorney fees associated therewith. 7. NO IMPROPER USE. The Appraiser Special Magistrate will not use, nor suffer or permit any person to use in any manner whatsoever, County facilities for any improper, immoral, or offensive purpose. or for any purpose in violation of any federal. state, county or municipal ordinance. rule. order, or regulation, or of any governmental rule or regulation now in effect or hereafter enacted or adopted. In the event of such violation by the Appraiser Special Magistrate. or if the VAB or its authorized representative shall deem any conduct on the part of the Appraiser Special Magistrate to be objectionable or improper, the VAB shall have the right to suspend the contract of the Appraiser Special Magistrate. Should the Appraiser Special Magistrate fail to correct any such violation. conduct, or practice to the satisfaction of the VAB within twenty-four (24) hours after receiving notice of such violation, conduct. or practice. such suspension to continue until the violation is cured. 8. TERMINATIQN.. Should the Appraiser Special Magistrate be found to have failed to perform the services in a manner satisfactory to the VAB as per the requirements of this Agreement, the VAB may terminate said Agreement immediately for cause; further the VAB may terminate this Agreement for convenience with a thirty (30) day written notice. The VAB shall be sole judge of non-performance. 9. CONTINUED RERRESENTA ICON. In the event suspension or termination occurs, Appraiser Special Magistrate agrees to continue representation of the VAB, as needed. to make determinations regarding the suspension. and/or until such time as a replacement Page 4 of 6 #22-8013 Appraiser Special Magistrate for the Collier County Value Adjustment Board {VAS) counsel can be appointed by the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) in compliance with §194.015. Florida Statutes. 10_ NO DISCRIMINATIQN. The Appraiser Special Magistrate agrees that there shall be no discrimination as to race, sex, color, creed, or national origin. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. To the maximum extent permitted by Florida law. the Appraiser Special Magistrate shall indemnify and hold harmless Collier County Board of County Commissioners, District School Board of Copier County, and the VAB. its officers and employees from any and all liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and paralegals' fees, whether resulting from any claimed breach of this Agreement by Appraiser Special Magistrate, any statutory or regulatory violations, or from personal injury, property damage, direct or consequential damages, or economic loss, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the Appraiser Special Magistrate or anyone employed or utilized by the Appraiser Special Magistrate in the performance of this Agreement. This indemnification obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce any other rights or remedies which otherwise may be available to an indemnified party or person described in this paragraph. This section does not pertain to any incident arising from the sole negligence of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, the District School Board of Copier County, or the VAB. The duty to defend under this Article 11 is independent and separate from the duty to indemnify, and the duty to defend exists regardless of any ultimate liability of the Appraiser Special Magistrate, VAB. and any indemnified party. The duty to defend arises immediately upon presentation of a claim by any party and written notice of such claim being provided to Appraiser Special Magistrate. Appraiser Special Magistrate's obligation to indemnify and defend under this Article 11 will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement until it is determined by final judgment that an action against the VAB or an indemnified party for the matter indemnified hereunder is fully and finally barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 12. AGREEIMkNLADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered by the Clerk to the VAB and the Collier County Procurement Services Division. 13. COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Agreement consists of the following component parts, all of which are as fully a part of this Agreement as if herein set out verbatim Appraiser Special Magistrate's Proposal, Insurance Certificates), and RFP #22-8013 "Appraiser Special Magistrate to the Value Adjustment Board", including Scope of Work. 14. AMENDMENT. This Agreement can only be amended in writing. executed by all parties In the same manner as this original Agreement. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 5 of 6 #22-8013 Appraiser Special Magistrate for the Collier County Value Adjustment Board [VAB} IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each, respectively. by an authorized person or agent have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above APPRAISER SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Michael P Jonas. MAI, AI-GRSIKova Appraisal & Consulting Services LLC dlbla Carlson Norris and Associates By. Print Michael P. Jonas.'MAI. AI-GRS Special Magistrate Datec Z— By Witness Sig ature Print Name:�- VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF COLLtER COUNTY FLOWDA By: Commissioner Chair Date q. go • Z'V yZ— Approved as to form and legality Esc- HollyDigitaE. Cosby, ONl Holly N. Esgly sign�d by Holly E.Co Slaw DFfire of Holly E" Cosby, PA, email=holiy(acosbylaw.com, c=115 By. Esq. Dare: 2022.09.1411 i":03-04'00' Holly E Cosby Esq Value Adjustment Board Attorney Date 9/ 14/22 0u4I+ti ATTEST Crystal K" Kinzel, Qte' k•' — BY clerh,�t hat Date ' Page 6 of 6 #22$013 Appralser Special Magistrate for the Collier County Vaiue AdIustrnent Board (VAB) Marty G. Rustin From: Mike Jonas <Mjonas@carlsonnorris.com> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 4:38 PM To: Marty G. Rustin Cc: Bonnie Leite; value adjustment board Subject: Re: Collier County VAB Agreement Renewal Option EXTERNAL Message! This message came from OUTSIDE the Clerk's office. Please use caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or replying to this message. If you have any questions, please contact helpdesk@collierclerk.com Yes I will renew Sincerely, Michael P. Jonas, MAI, AI-GRS, CCIM Managing Director Carlson, Norris and Associates 239-777-3430 mjonas(a)carlsonnorris.com From: Marty G. Rustin <marty.rustin@collierclerk.com> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 4:23:39 PM To: Mike Jonas <Mjonas@carlsonnorris.com> Cc: Bonnie Leite <bleite@carlsonnorris.com>; value adjustment board <VABCLERK@collierclerk.com> Subject: Collier County VAB Agreement Renewal Option Hello Michael, Good day to you. Per your 3-year agreement with Collier County VAB through 09/12/25, there is an option to renew for an additional 2 years pending VAB approval. Please seethe snip and highlights from your agreement below. Would you be willing to renew for the additional 2 years pending presentation and VAB approval at the next Organizational Meeting? Please advise for next steps. Thank you. Marty for VAB Admin iG ri AnioraillsorApeciall Magisjliater the aJ! AdIustm nt.Board (YAD1 PHIS AGREEMENT, rnade and entered into on this 12th day of Sep#ern bar, 2022, by and between Michael P. Jonas, MAI, AI-CRS]Kova Appraisal & Consulting Services. LLC doing business as Cad son, Norris and Aswciates, hefei n after called the "Appraiser Special Magistrate" authorized to do business in the State of i=lorida, and the Collier County Value Adjustment Board, consisting of members from the Collier County ward of County Commissioners, a political subdivpsion of the State of Florida. members from the District School Boarcd of Collier County, and citizen rnembers appointed by bath the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Distract School Board of Caffier County, hereinafter called the "Value Adjustment Board" (VAB) ADREEMENT 'TERM This Agree rrmenl snail be for a three (3) year period, commencing on the date of contract execution_ The Value Adjustment Board (VAIN) may, at its discTation and with the consent of the Appraiser Special Magistrate. renew this Agreement under ali of the terms and conditions contained ,n this Agreement for one (1 ) addetienal two () year period The VAB shall give the Appraiser Special Magistrate written notice of the VAB's intention to rerfew this Agreetrrent term prior to the end of this Agreement term then in effect. The VABr with the guidance and assistance of VAS Administration and the VAB attomey, may extend this Agreement under all of the terms and conditions contained in this ,agreement for up to one hundred and eighty (150) days. The VAB, with the guidance and assistance of VAB Administration and the VAB attorney_ shall give the Appraiser Special Magistrate written notice of the VAB's intention to extend this Agreement terry, prior to the end of this Agreement term then in effect. Marty Rustin Board Minutes & Records Supervisor Tel: 239-252-8399, Fax: 239-252-8408 marty.rustin _ collierclerk.com minutesandrecords(@collierclerk.com vabclerk@collierclerk.com legalnoticeC@collierclerk.com 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #401 Naples, FL 34112-5746 This electronic communication contains information intended solely for the named addressee(s). If you have received this communication in error, please forward the email in its entirety to the Clerk's Office at collierclerk@collierclerk.com and delete the email. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public. -ASSIIMINION AGREEMENT This Assumption Agreement is t►i,t�1e and entered into on this Ist of'Novernbvr. 20-5 by and 17ct►vctn Michael P_ Jonas and [lieCollier County Value Adjustrnent Board, consisting of ►ncml)ers I'run1 the Collier CoosrltV Board of County Commissioners, a political subdIN lston of the Stale nl Florida, inembers rrorn tlyr District School Board cA'Cullier County, and enizen members alzl,allnted by both [lie Collier County Board of County Commissioners anti District School Board 01' Collier County, hereinatler called the "Collier Count,% Valise Adjustment Board" ("VAH"). (Collectively the "Parties"3, WHEREAS, cn1 September 12. 2072 pursuant to VAB Agenda Items 07A anti 07f1, the Couniv imarded an Agreement No. 37-8013, Appraiser Specisil Magistrate Aggreenlent Im the Value AilEusimerit Board. ("Agreement") to Michael 1-1. Jonas. MAI, AI-GRSIKOva Appraisal ck Consulting Services, l.f.0 doing business as Carfsosi. Norris and Associates ("Original"), and W11FREAS. on Novemhcr L 2025, BBG Real L-siate SL'Cvrees COMPleled its flierger will Carlson., Norris&. AssociaWs, and therealier designated Michael P Jonas as the successor pro►rider for the services under the Agreement thcrebv transferring all service responsibilities Previously perlisrmrd by Michael 1'..101ILt,S. NIAI, Al-GRt //ova Appi,alsal &: Consulting Ser►ices. l_I.0 dt►rng htltitlteSS as Carlson. Norris and Assocwtcs' 10 Michael P. JunWti, rind WHEREAS, Michael 1'. Jonas. lie by represents to the VA13 that. by vintlr of Cklrlwk;n, Norris and Associates' merger into l: HG heal L;state Services and HBG Real L=state Srr►n 's d>rsignastion ul, Michael 1". Jonas as the successor provider, Michael P. Jonas is the succesS01- in interest in relation to the Agreement: and W111:i0:AS_ thw PartICS wish tO li,rmal»c tvtich,acl ('. JonaS'S rr,yurnplion oaf rights ancl obltgationS unslrr tiie Agreement c cctl►'e -is of the date fitst above ►vntten. NOW " ii---m-i-on. IN CONSi1]l:RA7'ION ofthe mutual prc,rrirses in Illis ASSUniption ALrecntwnt_ and for other good and valuable contiideraticy11' the receipt and sulliciency of whielti are acknc,tvlcdgcd b4• the Parties. it is agreod as tullot►+s, 1. Michael P J011as accclAs and assumes all rights, duties, benet`its, and obligations of Original under the !agreement, ineludinL, till existing and ft,ture obligations to perform under the Ag,reert7inz ? The parties herelly reaffirm and ratil}, cacti of the terms and cundtliuns in the 3. Further ,unplemertts tu, trr It►itdifit�jtioris c,l', the Aswccmcnt shall he ripprn►ed ill �4riting hs` both parties. Page 1 til' i 4. Notice required under the Agreement it) be sent to Michael 1' Jonas shall be dirmcd to Slicluiel P. (mas, 205 Madison Dr Napics. FL 341 10 At_tcntion: 1lichavi. P..lorla3 Phone: 239-777- 3430 Lniarl tnpjonns'�r, mail cunt 5 ThO COLJMt - hercihy consents to Michacl It Jonas's rissumptum orthe Agruemem in order 10 C011tilILi2 die services prm iced under Agreement No 32-8013 No ~.waivers u1'pvrf'urmanee or c.Ntensens onnne to per bnm are granted {1r aulh�iri�ed. 'I he C'+uint�- N+ill treat R4 ich.«1 P .foruls its it %vuld have Original 1'ur Lill IxirPoscs under the Aeuccmem F.xcept as pr'ut,illc(l hercin. all other tunas and conditions orific Agrccment remain in !Lill force and effect IN WI'I-NIrSS WI-11=RFOF. the uridemoned have exeeWed and delmcmd this Assunttrtum 119CUnxcnl 0111ctiVe its ofthe date first ahot e writteri. )zm um-e Page hu,folli - l9ge 2 of 3 APPRAISER SPECIAL MAGISTRA- TE, Michael P. Jonas, MAI, A[-GRS. CCIM iBv- fF'� r Pr1171 ichcael P- .foams. . A 1-CARS, C.C1M Appraiser Special Magistrate Date f VALUE ADJUS-1`MENT ROARU 01-- COLLIER COUN-1 Y. FLORIDA B llk>l--, /-= � � Commissioner Chair rule: A -(P - Approved as to li7rni and Ic- aiity, Holly E. Digitally signed byMuI LCosby, EW. f)N= Cn-molly F. Cosby. Esq„o.Law Offlte of Holly E. Cosby. PA, DU-VAB OYC V[�[ �^ Counsel, J +� lr h L emallwa6laxryrr@roulloakxom,t�LIS o . 1 IOalr:id25.121214S4�4d•OS"G7 —o)I � I:-.. C'oshy, 1:sq -- fbr' the Fit-rrl 1-1Nk' Office Oi'llnlly V, Co`U}', RA VAB LL401 CUL11.15 l Dow: December 12, 2025 Cti•xyf[1Prlllyy A'I`I"FST: C'rvstal K Itii�` By Page 3 0['3 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 Collier County Procurement Services Contract Renewal or Extension Request Form CONTRACT RENEWAL OR EXTENSION REQUEST FORM Contract #: 17-7046 Solicitation Title: Independent Legal Services for the VAB Name of Requester: Derek M. Johnssen Division Name: VAB Admin. - Clerk of Courts Company Name: Law Office of Holly E. Cosby, P.A Name of Company Agent: Holly Cosby Vendor Email: vablawyer@outlook.com Vendor Phone Number: 239-931-0006 Current Term: 06/01/2025 - 05/31/2026 Requested Term: 06/01/2026 - 05/31/2027 SECTION 1a. APPLICABLE TO RENEWAL SECTION 1b. APPLICABLE TO EXTENSION Fill out the Renewal section if there are renewals identified Fill out the Extension section if no renewals are identified and available per the contract. in the contract or if all renewals have been exhausted. Ex: 1- 1 Yr. Renewal of 2 Ex: No Renewals/ Ext Available ❑ Request to Exercise 1St ❑ Renewal to Exercise an ❑ Request to Exercise Administrative Extension (180 days) Renewal Evergreen ❑✓ Request to Exercise 2nd ❑ Renewal Includes Price ❑ Request Extension Beyond the Administrative Extension Renewal Increase* (180 days) ❑ Request to Exercise 3rd ❑ Increase Accepted by the *If selecting this option, an Executive Summary must be Renewal Division* provided with this form. ❑ Request to Exercise 4th ❑ Other: Renewal *The original solicitation document and/or resultant contract must contain a provision permitting price increases. Submit a new request ticket for "Contract Amendment" with supporting documentation accepted by the Division for any renewals with Price Increases. SECTION 2a. RENEWAL AFFIRMED SECTION 2b. EXTENSION AFFIRMED Project Manager/Contract Agent affirms the Vendor meets Project Manager/Contract Agent affirms the following the following requirements: requirements to extend: ❑✓ That the Contractor has performed in a satisfactory ❑ The extension period is identified in the original manner. solicitation document and/or resultant contract. 0 The renewal is subject to the terms and conditions ❑ The extension period is for the same terms and outlined in the initial contract. Cost and term conditions. modifications are addressed in the original solicitation ❑ The existing contract will be terminated upon issuance of document and/or resultant contract. the new contract without further notice. © That the renewal is done for a set period of time ❑ Any (non -blanket) Purchase Order that extends beyond identified in the solicitation document and/or contract, the expiration date of the original contract will survive commencing at the end of the contract period. and remain subject to the terms and conditions of that contract until the completion or termination of the Applicable only to Price Increases: Purchase Order. ❑ The request for a price increase has been evaluated and the supporting documentation justifies the request. SECTION 3. APPROVALS THE VENDOR HEREBY AGREES TO THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND IS AN AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE COMPANY WITH THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS FORM ON THE COMPANY'S BEHALF. *If the signer is NOT an authorized agent listed on Sunbiz, please also submit a Corporate Resolution, Limited Power of Attorney, Secretary's Certificate, or notarized letter from one of the listed principals giving that person signature authority. Project Manager/ Contract Agent Signature: Name and Date: Derek k M Johnssen Digitally signed by Derek M. Johnssen Derek M. Johnssen . Date: 2026.03.12 12:11:42-04'00' Vendor —Authorized Signatory Signature: Name and Date: Digitally signed by Holly E. Cosby, Esq. Holly E. Cosby, Esq. PA, ou=VAB Counsel, emaQ= ablawy@oul ok.HolImm, o=US HollyE. Cosby Ma`, 13 2026 7 7 Date: 2026.03.12 21:23:05-04'00' Procurement Director or Designee's Name: Signature: Digitally signed by Viviana Giarimoustas GiarimoustasViviana Date: 026.0Viviana Date' 2026.03.17 08:50:51-04'00' Procurement Use Only rv(]Approved Renewal Term Approved Term: 6/1/26- 5/31/27 ❑ Approved Renewal Term with Price Increase Approved Term: ❑ Renewal Term with Price Increase is subject to Board Date Board Approved: Approval ❑ Approved Administrative Extension Term Approved Extension Term: ❑ Extension is subject to Board Approval Date Board Approved Term: Notes: No renewals remaining. AFFIDAVIT REGARDING LABOR AND SERVICES AND CONTRACTING WITH ENTITIES OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES OF CONCERN PRQ111111'11'D Effective July I, 2024, pursuant to § 787.06(13), Florida Statutes, when a contract is executed, renewed, or extended between a nongovernmental entity and a governmental entity, the nongovernmental entity must provide the governmental entity with an affidavit signed by an officer or a representative of the nongovernmental entity under penalty of perjury attesting that the nongovernmental entity does not use coercion for labor or services. Effective January 1, 2024, a governmental entity may not accept a bid on, a proposal for, or a reply to, or enter into, a contract with an entity which would grant the entity access to an individual's personal identifying information unless the entity provides the government with an affidavit signed by an officer or representative under penalty of perjury attesting that the entity does not meet any of the following criteria: (a) the entity is owned by the government of a foreign country of concern; (b) the government of a foreign country of concern has a controlling interest in the entity; or (c) the entity is organized under the laws of or has its principal place of business in a foreign country of concern. Effective. July 1, 2025, when an entity extends or renews a contract with a governmental entity which would grant the entity access to an individual's personal identifying information, the entity must provide the governmental entity with an affidavit signed by an officer or representative of the entity under penalty of perjury attesting that the entity does not meet any of the criteria in paragraphs (2)(a)-(c). § 287.138, Florida Statutes, Nongovernmental Entity's Name: Law Office of Holly E Cosby PA Address: 602 Center Road. Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Phone Number: 239-931-0006 Authorized Representative's Name: Holly E. Cosby Authorized Representative's Title: President/Attorney/Owner Email Address: VAELawyer@Outlook.com 1 Holly E, Cmby (Name of Authorized Representative), as authorized representative attest under penalty of perjury that Law Office of Holly E Cosby, PA (Name of Nongovernmental Entity) does not: (1) use coercion for labor or services as defined in § 787.06, Florida Statutes, and (2) the nongovernmental entity is not (a) owned by a government of a foreign country of concern, (b) that a foreign country of concern does not have a controlling interest in the entity, and (c) that the entity is not organized under the laws of or has its principal place of business in a foreign country of concern, all as prohibited under § 287,138, Florida Statutes. M ofperjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true. `- MarCh M, 202$ (Signature of authorized representative) Date STATE OF Fladda COUNTY OF Lee Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me, by means of M physical presence or ❑ online notarization this 1V _ day of March , 20 2e , by Holly E. Cosby (Name ofAffiant), who produced his Florida Driver's License as identification. Notary I' blic ""''' •_ JILL JONES ; = Commltt W 0 HH 133579 Expires November 4, 2429 Commission txpirles Personally Known ■ OR Produced Identification ❑ Type of Identification Produced: CONTRACT RENEWAL OR CXTENSION REQUEST rORM Version, 2025.1 From: Holly Cosby To: dist2(a)leegov.com; dist3Ca)leegov.com Subject: FW: Value Adjustment Board Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:38:00 PM Attachments: LeaalOr)inion.pdf 2025 Agreement for Legal Services signed by Commissioner VAB clerk and VAB Counsel.pdf FW Legal Ooinion.msa Importance: High Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am embarrassed that this continues, and I am sorry that you continue to get dragged into this. I have no control over Kevin's continued efforts to try to get rid of me, and this is just more of the same. He and the Property Appraiser's Office are clearly collaborating on this effort, which is against F.A.C. 12D-9.023(1), which states, "...The board clerk shall Derform his or her duties in a manner to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. The board clerk shall not use the resources of the property appraiser's or tax collector's office and shall not allow the property appraiser or tax collector to control or influence any Dart of the value adiustment board process. When the Property Appraiser's Office first distributed their email, they copied Commissioner Pendergrass and Kevin's direct email. Kevin is never copied on anything VAB related, he is not part of the day-to-day VAB operations. The two Clerks of Court before Kevin were also not copied on day-to-day VAB operations, VAB Administration (infovab o leeclerk.org) is the email address that should be copied. They were not. Kevin then forwarded his email to others as a BCC; I am not sure who has received that email. The only reason I can think of for the "FOR COMPLIANCE PURPOSES - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ALL TO THIS EMAIL" heading is that he does not want me to find out who he has copied, which would be revealed if anyone were to "reply to all". This is confusing, since the VAB is "in the sunshine". As such, I am aware that this email will be placed "in the sunshine" at some point, and I am okay with that. The bottom line is that I am a taxpayer, just like every other VAB petitioner, and I did nothing wrong by filing the petitions I filed with the VAB. I had a plan on how to proceed with these matters to avoid a conflict of interest, and all of it was above board, very ethical, and the legal basis for it is in writing. VAB Administration was well aware that I filed three VAB petitions, it was not a secret to them. I had every intention of bringing my filings, and subsequently the Property Appraiser's letter, to the Board's attention during the Special Meeting that we will have coming up; you should be receiving a quorum roll call request from VAB Administration soon on that. Kevin decided to disseminate this to everyone in advance of any public meeting. In the meantime, if either of you would like to discuss this with me, please feel free to call me. I have copied both of you together, as you work together in the Commission, I have nothing to hide, and I would like the conversations to remain open and consistent with as many VAB members as possible. I will be reaching out to Mr. Zavada and Ms. Briggs, the VAB citizen members, as well. With regards to the appointed School Board Member, I will only discuss this with Mr. Fisher on the record and during an open, public meeting. There is nothing to gain from me reaching out to him directly at this time. Respectfully, Holly Cosby " C OSBYHOLLY E. COSBY, P.A. NTER OAD 2c Ty3� 8010-1CORIDA 33907 This electronic message transmission and any associated files and/or attachments contains information from the Law Office of Holly E. Cosby, P.A. that is considered confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please permanently delete this information and notify me immediately. Additionally, however, Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. Thank you. From: Kevin C. Karnes <kkarnes@leeclerk.org> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 3:49 PM To: Kevin C. Karnes <kkarnes@leeclerk.org> Cc: Honorable Matt Caldwell <CaldwellM@leepa.org>; Holly Cosby <vablawyer@outlook.com>; Richard Wesch <RWesch@leegov.com>; Alicia Gonzalez <agonzalez@leeclerk.org> Subject: Value Adjustment Board Importance: High **FOR COMPLIANCE PURPOSES - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ALL TO THIS EMAIL** Good afternoon Value Adjustment Board Members, On Wednesday January 21St, the Property Appraiser sent Chairman Commissioner Pendergrass the attached legal opinion. VAB Counsel and myself were copied on that email correspondence. Also attached is your VAB Counsel's current contract. Based upon the content of these documents, the VAB may choose to take action. Ms. Cosby did withdraw the 3 petitions, but only after the legal opinion was distributed to the Chair. I request that you all please review these materials and advise how you would like to proceed. Thank you, Kevin C. Karnes, MLS L. Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 1700 Monroe Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 239-533-2559 1 239-457-6683 cell I kkarnesaleeclerk.ora leeclerk.org U U U U Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. LEVY LAW FIRM PROPERTY TAX January 16, 2026 VIA E-MAIL Honorable Matt Caldwell, CFA Lee County Property Appraiser 2480 Thompson Street Fort Myers Florida 33901 E-mail: caldwellm@leepa.org Reply to: LOREN E. LEVY llevyQevylawtax com Re: Petitions filed by Value Adjustment Board Attorney for Lee County Dear Mr. Caldwell: You have requested my opinion regarding petitions filed with the Lee County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) contesting the assessment of three different real property parcels for the 2025 tax year. Those petitions were filed by Holly Cosby, who also serves as counsel for the VAB. You have inquired as to whether Ms. Cosby, as the VAB attorney, may file petitions contesting the valuation of the property. In sum, it is my opinion that Ms. Cosby's actions constitute a clear violation of the statutes and administrative rules governing the VAB process. Factual Background You have advised that Holly Cosby is the attorney for the VAB and has provided representation to the VAB for several years. The biography on her law firm website indicates that she also serves as attorney to the value adjustment boards in Hendry, Glades, Collier, Hernando, and Nassau counties. Ms. Cosby has filed two petitions with the VAB contesting the valuation of properties owned by limited liability companies (LLC) for which she is listed as a manager. She also has filed a petition contesting the valuation of her homestead property, which is owned by a revocable trust for which she is the trustee. Petition 2025-00920 contests the valuation of a real property parcel owned by Cheap Rent LLC, and seeks a decrease in that valuation. (Exh. #1) The petition was filed by Holly Cosby as manager of Cheap Rent LLC. Ms. Cosby completed part 3 of the VAB petition as the taxpayer. The form advises individuals to "[c] omplete part 3 if you are representing yourself or if you are authorizing a representative listed in part 5 to represent you without attaching a completed power of attorney or authorization for representation to this form." Part 5 of the petition form was not completed. 1828 Riggins Road I Tallahassee, Florida 323081 850.219.02201 www.levylawtax.com Page 1 of 7 Review of the Secretary of State's online database reflects that Ms. Cosby was listed as the Manager and Registered Agent of Cheap Rent LLC in the 2025 annual report. (Exh. #2) For 2026, Ms. Cosby is listed as the Manager and Registered Agent. The 2026 annual report also indicates that Charles J. Cosby is an authorized agent. (Exh. #3) The property is located at 1828 Evans Avenue and is a warehouse industrial property. For 2025, the Just (Market) Value was $2,385,183. The Assessed (Capped) Value was $691,683. Petition 2025-00921 contests the valuation of a real property parcel owned by Zally and Charlie LLC and seeks a decrease in that valuation. (Exh. #4) The petition was filed by Holly Cosby as manager of Zally and Charlie LLC. Ms. Cosby again completed part 3 of the VAB petition as the taxpayer. Review of the Secretary of State's online database reflects that Ms. Cosby was listed as the Manager and Registered Agent of Zally and Charlie LLC in the 2025 annual report. (Exh. #5) For 2026, Ms. Cosby is listed as the Manager and Registered Agent. Charlie R. Cosby III also is listed as a manager. The 2026 annual report further indicates that Charles J. Cosby is an authorized agent. (Exh. #6) The property is located at 1596 Tamiami Trail and contains several mobile homes, a duplex, and other residential buildings. For 2025, the Just (Market) Value of the property was $914,229. The Assessed (Capped) Value was $375,954. Petition 2025-00922 contests the valuation of a real property parcel, which is Ms. Cosby and her husband's homestead parcel, owned by Holly Cosby as trustee of the Holly E. Cosby Revocable Trust. That petition seeks an increase in the valuation. (Exh. #7) Although such petitions still are the exception to the general rule, taxpayers may seek an increase in the valuation of their property. Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2009-50 (2009). Typically, such petitions are seeking an increase in the just (market) value of the homestead property because the owner is contemplating moving to another homestead property and wants to increase the accrued assessment differential (portability) amount. See 193.155(8), Fla. Stat. (2025). The petition was filed by Holly Cosby as trustee. Ms. Cosby also completed part 3 of the VAB petition as taxpayer. Review of the Warranty Deed for the parcel reflects that Ms. Cosby, joined by her husband, conveyed the property to Holly E. Cosby, or her successor, as trustee for the Holly E. Cosby Revocable Trust in 2024. (Exh. #8) The property is located at 6211 Silver & Lewis Lane. For 2025, the Just (Market) Value of the property was $451,549. The Assessed (Capped) Value was $271,859. The Taxable Value, which reflects the homestead exemption, was $221,137. A hearing on Petition 2025-00922 currently is scheduled for January 27, 2026. Hearings on Petitions 2025-00921 and 2025-00920 have been scheduled for February 9, 2026. 1828 Riggins Road I Tallahassee, Florida 323081 850.219.02201 www.levylawtax.com Page 2of7 Legal Analysis All value adjustment boards in Florida must be represented by private counsel. "The primary role of the board legal counsel shall be to advise the board on all aspects of the value adjustment board review process to ensure that all actions taken by the board and its appointees meet the requirements of law." Fla. Admin. Code R. 1213-9.009(1)(a) (2025). VAB counsel is not an advocate for either the petitioner or the property appraiser; his or her role is to ensure that the proceedings are fair and consistent with the law. Id. at (1)(c). The "board legal counsel shall advise the board in a manner that will promote and maintain a high level of public trust and confidence in the administrative review process." Id. at (1)(b). The duties of the legal counsel include: (d) Board legal counsel shall advise the board of the actions necessary for compliance with the law. (e) Board legal counsel shall advise the board regarding: 1. Composition and quorum requirements; 2. Statutory training and qualification requirements for special magistrates and members of the board; 3. Legal requirements for recommended decisions and final decisions; 4. Public meeting and open government laws; and, 5. Any other duties, responsibilities, actions or requirements of the board consistent with the laws of this state. (f) Board legal counsel shall review and respond to written complaints alleging noncompliance with the law by the board, special magistrates, board clerk, and the parties. The legal counsel shall send a copy of the complaint along with the response to the department. This section does not refer to routine requests for reconsideration, requests for rescheduling, and pleadings and argument in petitions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-9.009(1)(e) (2025). In sum, counsel for the VAB advises the board on the legal requirements on all aspects of the hearing process. Importantly, the VAB attorney "may not represent the property appraiser, the tax collector, any taxing authority, or any property owner in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes." § 194.015, Fla. Stat. (2025) (emphasis added). There is no geographic limitation on these requirements and, therefore, the private counsel cannot represent any other taxing authority in the state. Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2008-55 (2008). In that opinion, the Attorney General advised that counsel for a value adjustment board could not represent a local government entity either within the county or elsewhere within the state. As the opinion stated: Id. Based on the language of the statute, it would appear that an attorney who represents a taxing authority outside Nassau County is precluded from representing the Nassau County Value Adjustment Board. Nothing in the language of the amendment or in legislative history places any geographical or jurisdictional limits on these conditions and this office is without any authority to read such a limitation into the statute. 1828 Riggins Road I Tallahassee, Florida 323081 850.219.02201 www.levylawtax.com Page 3 of 7 The reasoning of the Attorney General's opinion would apply to prohibit counsel for the VAB from representing any property owner within Lee County or elsewhere in the state in "any administrative or judicial review of property taxes." § 194.015, Fla. Stat. (2025). Likewise, such representation of property owners would disqualify that attorney from eligibility to serve as counsel for any value adjustment board in the state. In view of Ms. Cosby's role as counsel to the VAB, your office is correct to be concerned with the legality and propriety of the petitions filed by her on behalf of LLC's of which she is a manager and the homestead property owned by her trust. You have requested my opinion regarding whether Ms. Cosby's petitions would be considered lawfully authorized under section 194.015. If the filing of the petitions were found to be unauthorized under section 194.015, you have further inquired as to the legal consequence of the statutory violation and any potential remedies available to your office. (1) Whether the filing of petitions with the VAB by its legal counsel is authorized pursuant to section 194.015? Based upon my review of the applicable statues, administrative rules, Attorney General opinions, and case law, it is my opinion that the filing of petitions with the VAB by its legal counsel conflicts with the plain language of section 194.015 and the underlying legislative intent of the enactment. Section 194.015 prohibits the VAB attorney from "representing the property appraiser, the tax collector, any taxing authority, or any proper y owner in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes." (Emphasis added.) Ms. Cosby's filing of the three petitions clearly violates this statutory prohibition. Review of each of the petitions reflects that Ms. Cosby electronically signed the petitions, either as manager for the two LLC's or as trustee for her revocable trust, and completed the "taxpayer" section of the petition form. On the petition forms, she even uses as the email address cosbylaw@gmail.com, which is the same email address she uses for the Florida Bar. The filing of the petition also conflicts with Ms. Cosby's obligations as VAB attorney under the administrative rules. The VAB attorney cannot function as "an advocate for either party in a value adjustment board proceeding, but instead ensures that the proceedings are fair and consistent with the law." Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-9.009(1)(c) (2025). "An attorney may represent a value adjustment board, even if another member of the attorney's law firm represents one of the enumerated parties so long as the representation is not before the value adjustment board." Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-9.008(4) (2025). That rule also commands that legal counsel "should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest in their representation." Id. at (5). The filing of petitions contesting the valuation of property owned by entities in which Ms. Cosby has a personal interest is textbook example of a conflict of interest. She cannot act as an advocate for entities managed or controlled by herself and, at the same time, function as counsel for the VAB. The two interests are diametrically opposed. Ms. Cosby cannot avoid the application of section 194.015 and the referenced administrative rules by asserting that she is merely filing the petitions in a pro se capacity and, therefore, is not "representing" any property owner as prohibited in the statute. Section 194.015 does not contain any exception for pro se filings. In any event, such a pro se filing would violate the prohibition against conflicts of interest set forth in rule 12D-9.008(5).' ' This opinion does not address the implications of the conflict of interest prohibitions in the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. 1828 Riggins Road I Tallahassee, Florida 323081 850.219.02201 www.levylawtax.com Page 4of7 Any argument that Ms. Cosby is merely proceeding pro se also would be contrary to well established case law regarding pro se representation of corporate entities and trusts. Because such entities are considered to be separate and apart from their officers, stockholders, members, and/or trustees, courts routinely have disallowed any claim that they may be represented by such individuals pro se. With regard to the petitions filed on behalf of the LLC's of which Ms. Cosby is a manager, it is well settled that the member of an LLC has no ownership interest in assets contributed to it. Palma P. S. Fla. Pulmonary dam' Critical Care, LLC, 307 So. 3d 860, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ("[A]n LLC is an autonomous legal entity, separate and distinct from its members."). "All property originally contributed to the limited liability company or subsequently acquired by a limited liability company by purchase or other method is limited liability company property." § 605.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2025). "It is basic hornbook law that `corporate property is vested in the corporation itself, and not in the individual stockholders, who have neither legal nor equitable title in the corporate property."' Brevard Cnty. v. Ramsey, 658 So. 2d 1190, 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (quoting In re Miner, 177 B.R. 104, 106 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1994) (emphasis added)). Consequently, an LLC member has "no interest in any specific limited liability company property." § 605.0110(4), Fla. Stat. (2025) (emphasis added). See also S &A Prop. Inv. Servs., Inc. P. Garcia, 360 So.3d 432, 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) ("Taxpayer has cited no authority for the proposition that owners or members of an LLC who convey, via quitclaim deed, real property to an LLC retain, as a matter of law, the equitable title to the conveyed property because those owners or members control the LLC."). It is a well-founded principle in Florida law that corporations and LLC's cannot represent themselves or appear in a court of law without an attorney. Dunning Cars, LLC v. Miller, 333 So.3d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2022) (citing Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Or. P. Debt of Healtb & Rebab. Serus., Off of Licensure & Certification, 428 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1982)); Joe -Lin, Inc. P. LRG Restaurant Group, Inc., 696 So.2d 539, 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); S.Zteinbaum v. Kaes Inversionesy TValores, C.A., 476 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Nicholson SubbyCo. P. First Fed. Sat'. & Loan Assn of Hardee Cnty., 184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Although an individual may represent himself or herself in court without employing an attorney, a corporation is not permitted to do so and a pleading signed in the corporate name by one of its agents or officials is a nullity and must be disregarded. Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Or., 428 So.2d at 257. The rule is the same for the petition filed by Ms. Cosby as trustee for her revocable trust. Multiple Florida courts have determined that a trustee is unable to appear pro se on behalf of a trust because it constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Lavine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 226 So.3d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Griner P. Rockridge Prop. Owner's Assoc., 59 So.3d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); EHQF Trust P. S &A Capital Partners, Inc., 947 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). In EHQF Trust, the notice of appeal was filed by a trust and was not signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. 947 So.2d at 606. The Fourth District cited precedent from other states to support its determination that a trustee cannot appear pro se on behalf of a trust. Id. A trustee represents the interests of others, so allowing a trustee to appear pro se would constitute the unauthorized practice law. Id. Because the trustee was not authorized to appear pro se, the court dismissed the appeal. Id. 1828 Riggins Road I Tallahassee, Florida 323081 850.219.02201 www.levylawtax.com Page 5 of 7 Two other Florida appellate courts relied on the holding in EHQF Trust to reach the same conclusion. Lavine, 226 So.3d at 327; Griner, 59 So.3d at 1. In Lavine, the trustee of the revocable trust signed the notice of appeal for a final judgment of foreclosure. 226 So.3d at 327. The appellate court determined that because the trustee was not an attorney, he was unable to represent the trust because doing so constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Id. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. Id. Similarly, in Griner, the Second District Court dismissed an appeal where a trustee appeared pro se on behalf of a trust. 59 So.3d at 1. The Eleventh Circuit has addressed whether a trustee can act on behalf of a trust when filing documents in court. J.J. Bissell, Allentown, PA Trust v. Marchelos, 976 F.3d 1233 (11th Cit. 2020). In reaching its decision, the court noted that a trust is like a corporation in that it "can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel." Id. at 1235. The court determined that although the trustee was an attorney, he was disqualified from representing the trust. Id. at 1236. As a result, the trustee was in the same position as a nonlawyer trustee, and a nonlawyer trustee has no authority to represent a trust in court. Id. Ms. Cosby would appear to be similarly disqualified from representing her trust "pro se." (2) What are the legal consequences resulting from a violation of section 194.015? Section 194.015 prohibits the VAB attorney from "representing the property appraiser, the tax collector, any taxing authority, or any property owner in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes." The statute, however, does not include within its language any specific remedy for a party that believes a violation has occurred. Based upon the plain language of the statute, Ms. Cosby is precluded from representing any property owner in VAB proceedings in Lee County and elsewhere in the state as long as she serves as VAB attorney. Because Ms. Cosby has violated section 194.015 by filing the three petitions in Lee County, the statute would require that she be disqualified from serving as counsel for the VAB. For that matter, the statute would require that she be disqualified from serving as counsel for any other value adjustment boards elsewhere in the state. Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2008-55 (2008). Whether Ms. Cosby should be disqualified from serving as counsel for the VAB is an issue within the purview of the VAB and/or the VAB Clerk. The property appraiser is not involved such matters. The more troublesome question is whether your office has any remedy under the statutes and administrative rules governing the VAB process. VAB members and special magistrates "shall recuse themselves from hearing a petition when they have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest." Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-9.022(3) (2025). Either party may communicate a reasonable belief that a special magistrate does not hold the qualifications required for their position or communicate a reasonable belief that a VAB member or special magistrate should recuse himself or herself for bias, prejudice or conflict of interest. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-9.022 (2025). The basis for any such belief shall be included in the record or submitted to the VAB's counsel prior to the hearing. Id. The resolution to any request for recusal or disqualification shall be entered into the record. Id. No similar provisions exist whereby a party may request the recusal of the VAB attorney or, in a similar manner, where the VAB attorney can recuse himself or herself from involvement in the 1828 Riggins Road I Tallahassee, Florida 323081 850.219.02201 www.levylawtax.com Page 6 of 7 VAB proceedings. The lack of any potential remedy by way of recusal makes sense in that section 194.015 and the administrative rules operate so as to theoretically prevent such conflicts of interest from occurring in the first instance. The pro se filing of a complaint or other legal pleading in circuit court on behalf of an LLC or a trust would be deemed a legal nullity. The quasi-judicial nature of the VAB process, however, allows anyone — including nonlawyers — to represent petitioners. Any argument that the three petitions filed by Ms. Cosby are a legal nullity and cannot be considered by the special magistrate, therefore, may not be sustained. Of course, these arguments would be forwarded by the special magistrate to the VAB attorney for counsel and advice. Again, such an event reflects the obvious conflict of interest resulting from Ms. Cosby's filing of petitions contesting the valuation of property in which she has an interest with a quasi-judicial body responsible for adjudicating the petition upon advice of its legal counsel, which is Ms. Cosby. Without any delineated remedy within the statutes or administrative rules, the property appraiser's only recourse would be to make an appropriate objection at the VAB hearings involving Ms. Cosby's petitions. Without question, Ms. Cosby cannot continue to serve as counsel for the VAB while filing petitions contesting the valuation of property and appearing on behalf of the property owners at the hearings before the special magistrates. Such conduct violates section 194.015 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 12D-9.008 and 9.009. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, ?4� Loren E. Levy LEL/gls Attachments 1828 Riggins Road I Tallahassee, Florida 323081 850.219.02201 www.levylawtax.com Page 7 of 7 [it PETITION TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD REQUEST FOR BEARING FLOR1011 Section 194.01-1, Florida Stalutiis 1,u 21r,-., lJz+1l OR-4ee R 11W Ftulu 120-19 CO2 1 .A.0 Dr i 1P.3 Page ILAi You have the right to an informal conference with the property appraiser. TM conference is not requi refs and does not change your filing due date- You can presr-mt fact. that support your cWim and 1he property apprslmi- can present facts that support the camecinesis of the assesarnenL To request a conlererroe, conlaol your courtly properly appraiser Far p❑rrah44 of homestead asseawnenl differencre, use the Polition la fl9e Value Adjus[MRril Board - Transfer of Homeslead Assetament Dtbfefence - Requezi for blearing Forth (DR496PORT). For deferral or penattiou, usa the Petition to the Value Adjustment Baird - Tax Deferral or Penalties - Request for Hearing Farrn (DR4860P). Forms are klrormatad, by referenne in Rule 12A-16-002 Flanda Admrnisualive Code- ! A' Z.! :� i iL li--j iF11J ' K yes€ 2O ale recOved8'9JVD9f2025 Petition A 2025-00920 iCaunty Lee Ta5 ;d PART 1. Taxpayer Informal$4n . _ — - --CHEAP __ Taxpayer name RENT LLC 'ficpre+sentaflve _ Mailing address 6211 SILVER AND LEWIS LN 'Peraet lO and 134424PW25030100 r 1626 EVAK, s AVE far 00UM FORT MYERS. FL 33%6 physical addfess or account f# Phone 941U"2521 JEmall COSBYL.AV @13MAILCOM The standard way to m GvNe lntcrmalipn Is try US mail. If possible, I prefer to receive irrferrnation by W email O fax. l am tiling this pulttrorl puffer the ge-tittari deadline- t have attached a a4dernerd of the runsona I filed We and any docurnants thal suppod, rn �Iaternnnt- ❑ } will not oftnd She hearing bul w+xdd like my v4d951w considkrw!d- (In this lrrsiance only, you must submit duplicate copk�s of your evidence to the talkie volusftZt hoard cl;A. Florida law akms the property appraiser to cross Jaxarnin& of otsjeet fo your evidence. its VAB or speciat rnaglsirate rOln will occur under the came statutory gueefines are ti you were prete ML } Type of Arvpeit}r 0 Res.14 to is [@ lrviM id and rrliscelweuus ❑ KIgh-water red%mge [] t rie, commie dal or moppet ❑ C� ❑ Res. st units [] Awl or dam use ❑ I a nt kJt, and a [� Su�rle may, equipnrv�t PART 2, treason for PeWon Coeds orte. If inure waa ors, file a separate WOon. [9 Real property value (check onu).RdeGrease Increase [1 Denial of axemption Sated OF enter type- �] DeNvi or rII;-ws irefion ]] Parenl+g WKWetlt redud]an ❑ Denial for late filing of exernptiart or ttassifltalIon Q PKWty was not subst ntia8yccrrJplete on January t (Iftude a date -stamped copy of appticalion.) ❑ Tat>'gLO pE!monatproperty value (Yau must have timely fled a [� d`y"iixpuvbme►Jl(a.19,3,1565(5i, F.S.)at change of return rrrctutred tsy s.193-052. {e-194- C34, F.S.)) ownBvship or con" (s.193-155{3). 593.1554(5), or ] Refund of taxes (of catastrophic event 193.1 ME(5), F-S.) ❑ Check here if Ws Is a jaifit petition. AttaO a list of units, parfiels, cw accounts wllh the properly apprerser's deterrninaticn that they are subalantlully alrnllar. {$- 194.011(3)(e). (11, end (9). F-S,) Fitter If1e time (In rrirnutes) you 0onk you need to presanl your case. Lw M heminps take 15 rt!atntJ4 . The VAB Js not bound by the re relstad bme. For strUN joint petitions for multiple uNla, Parsers, Or Srcesuntsr p(&Ma to t th-- needed far the entire group, My witnesses i r I will root be avaitabie to attend on speciftc dates. I have attached a 161 of dates. You have The right to ErAcharigs evidence vAlh the property appraiser. To initiate 111b exnhaq , you must submit yout evidence dirEcty to the property appraiser at teed 1S days before the hearing and make a written requesr far [he property appfaisar's evJdenee. At the hearing, you have the right to have veitnesses sworn. You have the right, regardless of whether you InWale the ewttenne oxcAia {fie, to receive from the property appmlisofa Copy at your property nhDord card nantalinbg inforrnatiw televanl to the cornputaiion of your current assessment, With confadentlal informnon redacted. When the property appraiser rerelves the petition, he Of she will either sere the property record Card Lo you or t1otlty you how to obtain kt online. Your petition will not be complete until you pay the firing fee- When the VAS hem reviewed and accepted it, they will assign a nurnbar, send you a tatifrrrnab on, and give a copy to the property appraiser. Unless Ilse person 11krig the petition is completing part 4. Me taxpayer must sign the petiilon in parl 3. Afxernattvely, the laxpayer's written authariaation or pDwer of attorney must aoDta pang the peGllk:in at the Urns of (ling with the signature of IN! person Filing the petillon in part 5 j s 194,011{3), F.Sj. Please oampkft one of ffm signatures below. Exhibit # 1 P UCM=pa1].1rr*ML 4tA06ev FL 11123 gage z of 3 o"[ete par! 3 if you afa fepresentirl$ yourself or if you a re a uthorizing a reprer ntative hared In part 5 to represent you withput abOfng a completed power of attorney or authonxaGon for representa lion to this form. Written aki t ftatilon from the taxp4yer is required for a=ess to canrklent;aI information from the property appraiser or lax E] I authorize the person I appoint In part 5 to have access to any wnfidenhal Informal! n relet+Fd to this petfficn. Under penaltles of pequry. I declare lhal I am the owner o l the property d"crited In this petition and lair f have rend this petition and the facts slated 41 it are true. CHEAP RENT LLC BY HOLLY COS BY - MANAGER CHEAP RENT LLC BY HOLLY C OSBY DRA39 -5 sigrr ire,t yw Pdnt flame Qate PART 4_ Emp!gyan, Agomay, rx_L parmM pt'C}f+essional smaawre Urnplele part 4 if you are the taxpayers or an affiliated eenUdy's employee or you we one of the fok wrq licensed repremntafives- I am (chack any box that oppAsay ❑ An emp$oyea of _ (taxppyer or an ahrGated entq)- ❑ A Florida Bar licensed attorney (Florida Sor number ). E] A Florida real eslale appraiser licensed under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (Iicense number t. A Florida real estate broker licensed under Chapter 475. Florida Statute& (license numtrer A Florlda ctrtified public accountant tl nsed under C# iupter 473, Florida Slatutels (llcen se nurnber I understand that written authorization from the taxpayer rs required for access to confidential information from the property appraiser or tax uoilMibr. Under penaltie& of penury, I certify that I have aulhadzation In file this petitlon on the ♦iaxpayer's beheIt. and I declare that I am toe owner's authcuted representative for purposes of fillnD this petirtinrt and of becoming an agent for service of process under s 194.011(3p), Florida Statules, and that r have read lhfs petitian and the facts stated tti It are [rue. &gnfrlure, feptersentalive Print narnc date 'ARTS. Unlloansed Re part 5 if you are an aul;hofted represenbffWe not I!sled in part 4 above. E7 I am a compansated represnntative not acting sa one of the licensed repfesenlMives or employan listed kn part 4 above AND Ithack anel ❑ Attachad is a power of altorney lhai conforms to the requirements of fart II of Chapter 709, F,S,. executed with the taxpayees authorized signature OR E] the taXpayeT's aulhodzed signature Is in parr Uf thfa form, C] I am art uncompensated representative filing this petition AND (check crtiel [] the taxpayef's authorization is atlacht!d OR E] the Ioxpaker's authodZed sfgnature is to part 3 of this term. I understand that written authorlxatinn from tfie uaxpayar is required for access to Confidential Infonnadon from the property appraiser or tax coilactor. Under penall les of perjury. I deckare that I am the owrwr's aulhortzad repres.erttaiivi�r Tor pu rposes of filing Ihis peltgan and of bawming an agent for sefviae of txocess under s. f 94.Of 1(3)(h). Florida Statutes, and That t haVe mad thin pefitloa and the facts stated In iC are True. Blgnature, repres+entwive Print 4'rarne — - - bale Exhibit # 1 Received On: WV40- 3,14-00 flol INFORMATION FOR THE TAXPAYER Keep this information for your files- Do not return this page to the VAB clerk Informal Conference with Property Appraiser You have the right to an informal conference with the property appraiser. This conference is not required and does not change your filing due date. You can present facts that support your claim and the property appraiser can present facts that support the assessment. To request a conference, contact your county property appraiser. PART 1. Taxpayer Information If you will not attend the hearing but would like your evidence considered, you must submit two copies of Your evidence to the VAB clerk before the hearing - The property appraiser may respond or object to your evidence. The ruling will occur under the same statutory guidelines as if you were present - The information in this section will be used by the VAB clerk to contact you regarding this petition. PART 2. Petition Information and Hearing Provide the time you think you will need on page I. The VAB is not bound by the requested time. Exchange of Evidence Rule 12D-9.020(f)(a)-(c), F.A.C.: (1)(a)1. At least 15 days before a petition hearing, the petitioner shall provide to the property appraiser a list of evidence to be presented at the hearing, a summary of evidence to be presented by witnesses, and copies of all documentation to be presented at the hearing. 2. To calculate the fifteen (15) days, the petitioner shall use calendar days and shall not include the day of the hearing in the calculation, and shall count backwards from the day of the hearing. The last day of the period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next previous day that is neither a Saturday. Sunday, or legal holiday. (b) A petitioner's noncompliance with paragraph (1)(a) does not affect the petitioner's right to receive a copy of the current property record card from the property appraiser as described in s. 194.032(2)(a), F.B. (c) A petitioner's noncompliance with paragraph (1)(a) does not authorize a value adjustment board OF special magistrate to exclude the petitioner's evidence - However, under s. 194,034(1)(h), F-S., if the property appraiser asks in writing for specific evidence before the hearing in connection with a filed petition, and the petitioner has this evidence and knowingly refuses to provide it to the property appraiser a reasonable time before the hearing, the evidence cannot be presented by the petitioner or accepted for consideration by the board or special magistrate. Reasonableness shall be determined by whether the material can be reviewed, r'etrrllon DR-486 R- 11123 Page 3 of 3 investigated, and responded to or rebutted in the time frame remaining before the hearing. These requirements are more specifically described in subsection 0) of this rule and in paragraphs 12D- 9A25(4)(a) and (0, F.A.C. If you provide this evidence and make a written request for the property appraiser's evidence, the property appraiser must give you Ns or her evidence at least seven days before the hearing. At the hearing, you have the right to have witnesses swom- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Required Partial Payment of Taxes (Section 194.014, F.S.) You are required to make a partial payment of taxes if you have a VAB petition pending on or after the payment delinquency date (normally April 1, following the assessment year under review), If the required partial payment is not made before the delinquency date, the VAB will deny your petition. The last day to make a partial payment before the delinquency date is generally March 31. Review your fax bill or contact your tax collector to determine your delinquency date. You should be aware that even if a special magistrate's recommended decision has been issued, a partial payment is still required before the delinquency date. A special magistrate's recommended derision is not a final decision of the VAB. A partial payment is not required only if the VAB makes a final decision on your petition before April 1. The payment amount depends on the type of petition filed on the property. The partial payment requirements are summarized below. Value Appeals: For petitions on the value of property and portability, the payment must include: . All of the non -ad valorem assessments, and " A partial payment of at least 75 percent of the ad valorem taxes, . Less applicable discounts under s. 197.162, F,S. Other Assessment Appeals: For petitions on the denial of a classification or exemption, or based on an argument that the property was not substantially complete on January 1, the payment must include: All of the non -ad valorem assessments, and - The amount of the ad valorem taxes the taxpayer admits in good faith to owe, - Less applicable discounts under s. 197.162, F.S. Exhibit #1 Dates 1 WM not he able !o aileud: 011t1117026, 01102/W26, 01 ffi-i i}26,0tW2026, 01 OWM26, 0110f312026, 0114912Q26,0111212426, 01113l2f12G.0111412.025. O11ISM26.0111bP`�[ 6, 1=112025, ICY0:12.02.5, 1010i1 OIS. 1171{ nO25, IM71�(Y:5. IOAV2M5, 1M911025, JIVJI 207-5, 1b11312025, 101141202.', IW15r-025, NO61207-5. 10117/2025, 1012U(M-5, 1M1M25.1012212+i25, 1Un-V202.5. 1n12412,(} , 10127{2023, 1012SJ202_ . 10!29fZ 15, 1013012025, 10130015. 1110312D2.5,11104r=.1110512025, 11A36fM25, I IAYN2075, 111IWW2 +, i 1i11J2(MS,1111212025,111IN202i, 11110202.S. 111171 M, 11118=1. I IA9/2025. 1If-NVM5, 1112112M0 141241202S. 1lla5l20' , i1126=5, 111271200. 11(MO25, 12A)I=5, IZMVXM.12J0,VM25, 12 112MS. 121M202.5. 12J(W2025, 12Jq I2025, 1?11012 M, 12A M925, 12 J2025, 1?1L rM25, 1211tti1'2025,1212712025, 12J1812025, W1912023. I V2212025, 12/23=5, 1V2412025, 12W202.5, 121Z612025, 1?.i:9J",.025, 1?!.VY=.1243 WOW Exhibit # 1 2025 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# L05000066423 Entity Name: CHEAP RENT, LLC Current Principal Place of Business: 602-B CENTER ROAD FORT MYERS. FL 33907 Current Mailing Address: 602-B CENTER ROAD FORT MYERS, FL 33907 FEI Number: 65-0640818 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: COSBY, HOLLY E. 602 CENTER ROAD FORT MYERS. FL 33907 US FILED Jan 06, 2025 Secretary of State 7697865269CC Certificate of Status Desired: No The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: HOLLY E. COSBY 01/06/2025 Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Authorized Person(s) Detail Title MGR Name COSBY, HOLLY E Address 602-B CENTER ROAD City -State -Zip: FORT MYERS FL 33907 I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: HOLLY E COSBY MANAGER 01/06/2025 Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date Exhibit #2 2026 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# L05000066423 Entity Name: CHEAP RENT, LLC Current Principal Place of Business: 602-B CENTER ROAD FORT MYERS. FL 33907 Current Mailing Address: 602-B CENTER ROAD FORT MYERS, FL 33907 FEI Number: 65-0640818 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: COSBY, HOLLY E. 602 CENTER ROAD FORT MYERS. FL 33907 US FILED Jan 07, 2026 Secretary of State 5146269806CC Certificate of Status Desired: No The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: HOLLY E. COSBY 01/07/2026 Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Authorized Person(s) Detail Title MGR Name COSBY, HOLLY E Address 602-B CENTER ROAD City -State -Zip: FORT MYERS FL 33907 Title AUTHORIZED AGENT Name COSBY, CHARLES J Address 602-B CENTER ROAD City -State -Zip: FORT MYERS FL 33907 Date I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered, SIGNATURE: HOLLY E COSBY MANAGER 01/07/2026 Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date Exhibit #3 �.•, 1;, g:00 Pt�I Fes; f�ti;,on ltlr DR-486 PETITION TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Rule 1 D= s a0o2 e F.A.C. REQUEST FOR HEARING Elf. 11123 Section 194.011, Florida Statutes Pagel of 3 You have the right to an informal conference with the property appraiser. This conference is not required and does not change your filing due date, You can present 'facts that support your claim and the property appraiser can present facts that support the correctriess of the assessment. To request a conference, contact your county property appraiser. For portability of homestead assessment difference, use the Petition to the Value Adjustment Board — Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference — Request for Hearing Form (DRAB6PORT). For deferral or penalties, use the Petition to the Value Adjustment Board — Tax Deferral or Penalties — Request for Hearing Form (DR-4860P). Forms are incorporated, by reference, in Rule 12D-16.002, Florida Administrative Code. Petition # 2025-00921 7County Lee ITax year 2025 Date received0910912025 r PART 1, Taxpayer Information Taxpayer name ZALLY AND CHARLIE LLC Representative Mailing address 6211 SILVER AND LEWIS LN Parcel 1D and 024424110000000201 1596 N TAMIAMI for notices FORT MYERS, FL 33966 physical address or TRL TPP account # Phone 9416772521 Email COSBYLAW@GMAIL.COM The standard way to receive information is by US mail. If possible, I prefer to receive information by ® email ❑ fax. 1 am filing this petition after the petition deadline. I have attached a statement of the reasons I filed late and any documents that support my statement. ❑ I will not attend the hearing but would like my evidence considered. (in this instance only, you must submit duplicate copies of your evidence to the value adjustment board clerk. Florida law allows the property appraiser to cross examine or object to your evidence. The VAB or special magistrate ruling will occur under the same statutory guidelines as if you were present.) Type of Property ❑ Res. 14 units ❑ IndustrW and misceliarieous ❑ High-water recharge ❑ Hfistow, commercial or nonprofit ® ❑ Res. 5+ units ❑ Agricultural or cla%lfied use ❑ Vacant lots and aoreage ❑ Business machinery, equpnent PART 2. Reason for Petition Check one. If more than one, file a separate petition. ❑x Real property value (check one):®decrease ❑increase ❑ Denial of exemption Select or enter type: ❑ Denial of classification ❑ Parent/grandparent reduction ❑ Denial for late Filing of exemption or classification ❑ Property was not substantially complete on January 1 (Include a date -stamped copy of application.) ❑ Tangible personal property value (You must have timely filed a ❑ Qualifying improvement (s.193.1555(5). F.S,)or change of return required by s.193.052. (s.194.034, F.S.)) ownership or control (s. 193.155(3), 193A554(5), or ❑ Refund of taxes for catastrophic event 193.1555(5), F.S.) ❑ Check here 0 this is a joint petition. Attach a list of units, parcels, or accounts with the property appraiser's determination that they are substantially similar. (s. 194.011(3)(e), (f), and (g), F.S.) so Enter the time (in minutes) you think you need to present your case. Most hearings take 15 minutes. The VAB is not bound by the requested time. For single joint petitions for multiple units, parcels, or accounts, provide the time needed for the entire group. © My witnesses or I will not be available to attend on specific dates. I have attached a list of dates. You have the right to exchange evidence with the property appraiser. To initiate the exchange, you must submit your evidence directly to the property appraiser at least 15 days before the hearing and make a written request for the property appraiser's evidence. At the hearing, you have the right to have witnesses swom. You have the right, regardless of whether you initiate the evidence exchange, to receive from the property appraiser a copy of your properly record card containing information relevant to the computation of your current assessment, with oonfidential information redacted. When the property appraiser receives the petition, he or she will either send the property record card to you or notify you how to obtain it online. Your petition will not be complete unfit you pay the filing fee. When the VAS has reviewed and accepted it, they will assign a number, send you a confirmation, and give a copy to the property appraiser. Unless the person filing the petition is completing part 4, the taxpayer must sign the petition in part 3. Alternatively, the taxpayer's written authorization or power of attorney must accompany the petition at the time of filing with the signature of the person filing the petition in part 5 (s. 194.011(3), F.S.). Please complete one of the signatures below. Exhibit #4 i. . .It . '6'' .1 1 4 1 F ` bR-466 R- IIQ3 Ngm a or 3 to part 3 if you are representing your or if you are authedzing a repfesentalive KiAed In pail 5 to represent you attaching a completed power of attamey or authorizkon for repreSentatian to Mir, farm authonaation from the taxpayer is required (of access to oonfidenital Information from the property appraiser or toy U I authorize the parson I appoint in part 5 to bane access to any conffderitial information related to this peiFtkm Under penatties of perjury, I dedare that I am the a"r of the property described in this pelition and that I have Head this petition and the facts rfted in It acre Irue- ZALLY AND CHARLIE LLC BY HOLLY COSBY - MANAGER SLY AND CHAR LIE LLD BY HOLLY 09109/2025 Stgnatum, tastoayer Print name Dote ampleta part 4 H you are the taxpayers or an n'147reaentatives- I am lcheck any box that Applies): Q An ern*yee of or you are one (taxpayer nt an aFfilhated enmity ). ❑ A Florida bar Wconsed atiom" (Florida Bar nurimper j. ❑ A Fiends real estate appraiser lkwrwed under Cltepte'r 475, Florida Stakfts (11cen1Ea nurrmber _ t. ❑ A Florida real esiale broker licensed under Chapter 476, Florida Slatutes (license number ❑ A Florida cartified puLft accoun Cant Ila.ensed under Chapter 473, (Ronda Stames (Iloense number ^ _ -1. I understand that wrftten authorizetron horn the taxpayer Is required far access to confldexiifal Informaian frurn the property appraiser or tax colkmtor. Under perkaltie's of perjury, i cerlify "I I have authorfaatbn to file this pWtion on the lexpayer's behall, and I decfwe [het I am thv awryerrs auf razed reprtwntAve for purpose* of filing thN petition and of beoDrning an agent for service of prcw s under s, 1914.011{3Xh), Fkxtda SWMas. and that I hive red this pelilion and the Fads stafad in It are true. Signature, WresergWlive Punt name bile Complete part 5 9you we an aulhcxked representative not Iis.Ced In pail 4 above. ❑ I am a nompensated iepr entali not aotirmy as one of the ilpensed representatives or emplrxyeem Wed in part 4 nwve AND (check cm) © Attached fs a pbvrer of atiamey that oonfnrms In Me "ulraments of Part II of Chapter 709, F.S., exiieuted wffh thin taxpayee5 autf crizr.d signature OR 0 the taxpayer's authorized signature is in part 3 nl this forzn. ] I am an uneomp'enaaled represantalive filing this petition ANO (check site) ] the taxpayer's authorization is attached OR ❑ the taxpay er's auMpr$ed signature Is h pad 3 of Ihls form I understand that wmitten autkwrizstlon from the taxpayer ee required for access to confldenfial information frarri the property appraiser or lax collector. Under penaltiirs of perjury, I declare loaf I am the owner's aothcrkwd repre'aentaiive for purposes of firing this petition and of be=n+ng an agent for service of process under s- 1!)4-Di I (3X0), Florida Statutes- and that I have read this petition and the facts stated in It are true - Signature, repreaenrnUva Print name [Into Exhibit #4 INFORMATION FOR THE TAXPAYER Keep this infofrnaWn for your files- Do not return Ihis page to the VAB Clerk Informal Conference with Property Appraism You have the right to art informal omference with thu prop" appraiser. This wrlference 15 not required and does not change your Ming due bate- You oars present facts that suppoit your cLalm amid the property appl-asw can present (Has d%at support the assessment. To request a confarenoe, cofttect your musty property appraiser. PART I. Taxpayer Intoimalion ifyou will not a ft"d the hung bul woatd like yow evidence considered, you must submit Iwo copies of your avi�deriw to the VAB deck before the hearing. The property appralser may fespond or obiect to your evidanoe. The ruling will occur under tha some statutory guidelines as if you were pnesenL The i rifornratiori in this section will be used lay the VAB oterk to contact you feWrding this eeCEtion. PART 2. Pelition Informathm and Hearing Provide the tirne you think you will need on page i- The VAB is riot bound by Me requesled Urne. Exchange of Evidence Rule 121N9.020(1)(B}tcl+ F A-C,- j1)(a)l- At least 15 days ryelore a petition hearing. the petitioner shell provide to the properly appraiser a 11$t of evidence to be presented at the (rearing. a summary of evideAoe to hi± presented by witnesses, and cioples of all docurnentallon to be pfesen[ed al the hearing. 2. To calrolate lher fifteen (15) days, the petllioner shall use calendar days and shall not incli ide the day of the hearing in tYta calculation, and shall count backyvwds k mi the flay of the hearing. The IsM day of the pertad shall be Included unless It is a Satutday, Sunday, ar fapl holiday, in which everd the period "ll run 4tngl ft end of the next 9mrAotrs day lhat is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, (b) A petwners noncompHartae wflh paragraph (1)(a) sloes nut afirect the pelitioners tight to receive a mpy of the current property record Cant from the property appraiser as descrilbe4 Ir1 s. 194.032(2)(a), F-S. (c) A potiwees noncompliance with paragraph (1 Xa) does not sulhorlze a vaIua adjustmeni board or special mag Isi ate to exclude the pelitioners evidence However, utider s, 194,034(1)(h). F.S„ if this property app4rser asks In wrfdng for speclfrc evkr once before 1# a hearirg lr't Connealon v41h a filed petittoft, and the patilloner has 1hlis avtdence and knowingly refuses to provide it to the property appraiser a reasonable time before the hearing, the evrdemr a ranriot ba presented by The pethoner or accepted for cortsiderativn Gy the board or special magisbate. Reasonableness shall be deterrr red ay whether lha material can lee reviewed, W Page 1 tf � invesligaLed. and responded io or rebutled in VW time (Faroe remaining before the tiearing, These requirernerrts are more speczkficaliy described in subsection (6) of this rule and irl parag{aphs 12D- 9-025(4)(a) and ft F,A,C. If you provide this evidence and make a written request for the proPady appraiszr+s avtoenw, the property appraiser must give you his or her evidence at least seven days before the hearing. At the Rearing. You have the nghf to have witnesses $+rorrl. F'1111ttle UA3.11 :]i,-l<1101i Required Partial Payment of Taxes (Section 194.014, K5.) You are required to make a part l Nyrnem of taxes if ymr have id VAB peftn pwAirtg on ur attar the payment delinquency date normally Apr11 1, rollowfng the assessment year under review). if the required partial payment Is not made before the detinquemy data. the VAB will deny your petition- Trio last day to make a partial payment before Me delli-quency date is generally Meroh 31- Review your tax blll or contact your tax coltedar to determine your del in4uercy date - You should toe aware that ever, tf a special tnagt5trata's reMmrrianded docslon has been issued, a parMl payment is still req4lre0 before the dellocIvency c#ate. A speciiah rnaglslrate's recommended dedshan i5 T'KX a final ftciision of the VAB. A partial payment is not regtilred only 0 9w VAS makes a finat dedsinn an your petition Wore April 1. The payment arrmaa m dept nos on the type of pett#i flied on the property. The partial payment requirem8nts are sumrriwked below. Value Appeals: For petitlor�s on the value of property ano portability. the payment must OdLjdo: All of the non -ad valorem assemments, and A partial paymefrt of at least T5 percent of the ad valorem tames, • Lass applicst%e alswunts undiws. 197,162, F.s- Other Assessment Appeals, For petitions on Uze danlal of a rtassif'GB60F1 or cxerrtpdan, or based ors an argumir nt Thal the property waS not substantlally complete on .lanuary 1, the payment must Include; . All rat the nary -ad valarem assessments, and a The amuTit of the " vaverri taxes the taxpayer admits In good Faith to owe, . Less applicable discounts under s. 107.162. F., Exhibit #4 r ;'#IIflT6 KU-2rMM 4024 Dazes I will not be able to attend: 9110 t12026. 0191212026,11VD512026, 0IAXI2026, 01107# 26. 01108=6, 01A19f2026, 0111V2026, 01f 131 OM 01f1412026, 01115rM6,01f16=6. IWO112025, ]OA)212025.1010512025, )WO60W. tOMI 5. IOM 5. tOA)9=25, 1WICN7 5. 111113I 25, W14M25, ]UJ1512025, W16M 5, Ib1i7121} 5. I012p12p , tW2112025,1017.2f2 5,10f 312025, 1012612(o, i0127M25, i012g12025, 10129=25, ICY3012.025, 10131l202S, 1110312f , t 1f04fAA5, I I M7-5, i If061202.5, 11MIMS, t 1f10f2035,11f1112025,11f 12n0", 111131202-1. 11.1125. 1 lli7W25, 11118f202i,11119fW25, 1112M025, 11)?11A(#-'5, 111241=3. 11M51202.5, 1 1126M25, 11f W2075, 1 IPW025, 17J01MV5, 6210212025,12JD312025, 12104J2025, 1=5=1, 17YOW2025,12 }12025, 1211012025, 13f1112.025, 1211212025, 1V1SWM W16121)2S, 12117121YM 12 I"- 25, Qf1 MP.5, 1=2l2W.12f23120.5. t2M2025. 1281=5 Exhibit #4 2025 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# L11000058728 Entity Name: ZALLY AND CHARLIE LLC Current Principal Place of Business: 602 CENTER RD FORT MYERS. FL 33907 Current Mailing Address: 602 CENTER RD FORT MYERS, FL 33907 FEI Number: 45-2319984 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: COSBY, HOLLY 602 CENTER RD FORT MYERS. FL 33907 US FILED Jan 06, 2025 Secretary of State 1912022929CC Certificate of Status Desired: No The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Authorized Person(s) Detail Title MANAGER Name COSBY, HOLLY E Address 602 CENTER RD City -State -Zip: FT MYERS FL 33907 Title MANAGER Name COSBY, CHARLIE R III Address 602 CENTER RD City -State -Zip: FORT MYERS FL 33907 Date I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered, SIGNATURE: HOLLY E COSBY MANAGER 01/06/2025 Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date Exhibit #5 2026 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# L11000058728 Entity Name: ZALLY AND CHARLIE LLC Current Principal Place of Business: 602 CENTER RD FORT MYERS, FL 33907 Current Mailing Address: 602 CENTER RD FORT MYERS, FL 33907 FEI Number: 45-2319984 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: COSBY, HOLLY 602 CENTER RD FORT MYERS, FL 33907 US FILED Jan 07, 2026 Secretary of State 6836893350CC Certificate of Status Desired: No The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Authorized Person(s) Detail : Title MANAGER Name COSBY, HOLLY E Address 602 CENTER RD City -State -Zip: FT MYERS FL 33907 Title AUTHORIZED AGENT Name COSBY, CHARLES J Address 602 CENTER RD City -State -Zip: FORT MYERS FL 33907 Title MANAGER Name COSBY, CHARLIE R III Address 602 CENTER RD City -State -Zip: FORT MYERS FL 33907 Date I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: HOLLY E COSBY MANAGER 01/07/2026 Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date Exhibit #6 ReceN,p_a On 3,W2025114.0113 PC,S P+91lllOn )"iik)n No: =''- "-1?g922 DR-486 PETITION TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Rule o-1s oat REQUEST FOR HEARING F.A.C. Eft. 11123 FLORIDA Section 194.011, Florida Statutes Page of 3 You have the right to an informal conference with the property appraiser. This conference is not required and does not change your filing due date. You can present facts that support your claim and the property appraiser can present facts that support the correctness of the assessment. To request a conference, contact your county property appraiser. For portability of homestead assessment difference, use the Petition to the Value Adjustment Board — Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference — Request for Hearing Form (DR-4$6PORT). For deferral or penalties, use the Petition to the Value Adjustment Board — Tax Deferral or Penalties — Request for Hearing Form (DR-486DP). Forms are incorporated, by reference, in Rule 12D-16,002, Florida Administrative Code. Petition # 2025-00922 County Lee Fax year 2025 Date received09/0912025 PART 1. Taxpayer Information Taxpayer name COSBY HOLLY TR Representative Mailing address 6211 SILVER AND LEWIS LN Parcel ID and 18452500000039040 / 6211 SILVER AND for notices FORT MYERS, FL 33966 physical address or LEWIS LN TPP account # Phone 9416772521 Email COSBYLAW@GMAILCOM The standard way to receive information is by US mail. If possible, I prefer to receive information by ® email ❑ fax. ❑ I am filing this petition after the petition deadline_ I have attached a statement of the reasons I filed late and any documents that support my statement. ❑ f will not attend the hearing but would like my evidence considered, (in this instance only, you must submit duplicate copies of your evidence to the value adjustment board clerk. Florida law allows the property appraiser to crass examine or object to your evidence. The VAB or special magistrate ruling will occur under the same statutory guidelines as if you were present.) Type of Property ® Res. 1-4 units 0 Industrial and miscellaneous ❑ HV water recharge ❑ Histow, commercial or nonprofit ❑ CornmercW ❑ Res. 5+ units ❑ Agricultural or classified use ❑ Vacant lots and acreage ❑ Business machnery, equipment PART 2. Reason for Petition Check one. If more than one, file a separate petition. ❑X Real property value (check one):❑decrease ®increase ❑ Denial of exemption Select or enter type: ❑ Denial of classification ❑ Parentlgrarxtparentreduction ❑ Denial for late filing of exemption or classification ❑ Property was rxatsubstantially complete on January 1 (Include a date -stamped copy of application.) ❑ Tangible personal property value (You must have timely filed a ❑ Qua6tying improvement (s-193.1555(5), F.S.) or change of return required by s.193.052. (s.194-034, F.&)) awnefship or control (s.193.155(3), 193.1554(5), or ❑ Refund of taxes for catastrophic event 193.1555(5), F.S.) ❑ Check here if this is a joint petition. Attach a list of units, parcels, or accounts with the property appraiser's determination that they are substantially similar. (s. 194,011(3)(e), (f), and (g), F.S.) sa Enter the time (in minutes) you think you need to present your case. Most hearings take 15 minutes. The VAB is not bound by the requested time. For single joint petitions for multiple units, parcels, or accounts, provide the time needed for the entire group. 0 My witnesses or I will not be available to attend on specific dates. I have attached a list of dates. You have the right to exchange evidence with the property appraiser. To initiate the exchange, you must submit your evidence directly to the property appraiser at least 15 days before the hearing and make a written request for the property appraiser's evidence. At the hearing, you have the right to have witnesses sworn. You have the right, regardless of whether you initiate the evidence exchange, to receive from the property appraiser a copy of your property record card containing information relevant to the computation of your current assessment, with confidential information redacted. When the property appraiser receives the petition, he or she will either send the property record card to you or notify you how to obtain it online. Your petition will not be complete until you pay the filing fee. When the VAB has reviewed and accepted it, they will assign a number, send you a confirmation, and give a copy to the property appraiser. Unless the person filing the petition is completing part 4, the taxpayer must sign the petition in part 3. Alternatively, the taxpayer's written authorization or power of attorney must accompany the petition at the time of filing with the signature of the person filing the petition in part 5 (s. 194.011(3), F.S.). Please complete one of the signatures below. Exhibit #7 OR-�8rr R. I V23 Playe2d3 PART 3, Taxpayer Signature Complete part 3 # you are representing yourself or if you are authorizing a representative listed in parl 6 to represent you wilhoui attaching a completed power of attamey or authorizati for representalfon to this form. Written authorization from the taxpayer is required for access to confidential infai-mation from the proPB4 appraiser or tax col lector. C) I authorize the person I appoint in part 5 to have access la any contidertlial information related to this petition. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I am the owner of the property described in Ihis pelliion aPd [Fiat i have read #his on and the facts stated in It are lrue. HOLLY E CCOSBY HOLLY E COS13Y 09AD9120n Slgtratuxa. Iaxpayar Print name Dflte PART 4. Ernpicryee. Attorney, or Licensed Pro?essiorlel Signature Cw mplete part 4 if you are the taxpayees or an affiliated entity's employee or you are one Df the folluy4rig licensed representatives. am (check any box that applies): C] An employee of (taxpayet or an aftated emit ). ] A Porida Bar licensed attorney �Florids tsar number j- �] A Florida ma e15tate appraiser licensed under Chapter 475. Plorlda Statutes (tfcense number . A Florida real estate broker licensed under Cflapter 475, F1Drida SlaMes (license numbef ]. A FWda certified public act;iyuntant #ioensed under Chapter 473r Florida Statutes jlicense number j. understand that written authorrzation from the taxpayer is requimd ror access to confidentia.1 information from The properly appraiser or tax collector. Under pen Wes ad perjury, i certify that I have authorization to file this petition on the laxpayer's behalf, and i declare that r am the owner's authorized representative for purposes of fiPng this PeVffion and of becoming are agent for service of process under s. 194,011(3)(h), Florida Siattdes, and that t have read this petition and the facts stated In }l are Due- Sianou", 1'ep Mta"" Print name Datia PART 5. Unilcensed Fie menteeve Signature Complete part 5 If you are an authorized represenfaiive not listed in part 4 above. [a I am a compensated representative not acting as one of the licensed representatives or employees lisled In part 4 above AND (shed one} ❑ Attarhed is a power of attorney that aanfarms to the requirements of Bart 11 of Chapter 709, F.S., executed with the taxpayees authorized signature OR [] the taxpayer's eulhorized signature is in part 3 of this torm- C1 I am an uncompensated represerAalive filing This petition AND (chuck arle) El the taxpayer's authorization is aliached OR ❑ the iaxpayer's authorized signature is In part 3 of this form. understand that written aulhoriza#ion Prom the taxpayer is required for access to confidential information from the property appraiser or tax collector. Under penalties of perjury. I declare that i aril the owner's aulhorized representative fir purposes of filing this petition and of beoorning an agent for service of process finder s- 194-011(3)(h). Porida Statutes, aGd that l have read this petition and the facts sialad in it are true. §ignatat-e, representative Print name Fate Exhibit #7 Remved Can: 9191F025 3,14 :00 P kI INFORMATION FOR THE TAXPAYER Keep this information for your files. ❑o not return this page to the VAB cleric. Informal Conference with Property Appraiser You have the right to an informal conference with the property appraiser. This conference is not required and does not change your filing due date. You can present facts that support your claim and the property appraiser can present facts that support the assessment_ To request a conference, contact your county property appraiser. PART 1. Taxpayer Information If you will not attend the hearing but would like your evidence considered, you must submit two copies of your evidence to the VAB derk before the hearing. The property appraiser may respond or object to your evidence. The ruling will occur under the same statutory guidelines as if you were present. The information in this section will be used by the VAS clerk to contact you regarding this petition. PART 2. Petition Information and Hearin Provide the time you think you will need on page 1. The VAB is not bound by the requested time. Exchange of Evidence Rule 12D-9.020(1)(a)-(c), F.A_C._ (1)(a)1. At least 15 days before a petition hearing, the petitioner shall provide to the property appraiser a fist of evidence to be presented at the hearing, a summary of evidence to be presented by witnesses, and copies of all documentation to be presented at the hearing. 2. To calculate the fifteen (15) days, the petitioner shall use calendar days and shall not include the day of the hearing in the calculation, and shall count backwards from the day of the hearing. The last day of the period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next previous day that is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. (b) A petitioner's noncompliance with paragraph (1)(a) does not affect the petitioners right to receive a copy of the current property record card from the property appraiser as described in s. 194.032(2)(a), F.S. (c) A petitioner's noncompliance with paragraph (1)(a) does not authorize a value adjustment board or special magistrate to exclude the petitioner's evidence. However, under s. 194.034(1)(h), F.S., if the property appraiser asks in writing for specific evidence before the hearing in connection with a filed petition, and the petitioner has this evidence and knowingly refuses to provide it to the property appraiser a reasonable time before the hearing, the evidence cannot be presented by the petitioner or accepted for consideration by the board or special magistrate. Reasonableness shall be determined by whether the material can be reviewed. Petl;ior- No '10922 DR-486 R. 11123 Page 3 of 3 investigated, and responded to or rebutted in the time frame remaining before the hearing. These requirements are more specifically described in subsection (8) of this rule and in paragraphs 1213- 9.025(4)(a) and (f), F.A.G_ If you provide this evidence and make a written request for the property appraiser's evidence, the property appraiser must give you his or her evidence at least seven days before the hearing. At the hearing, you have the right to have witnesses sworn. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Required Partial Payment of Taxes (Section 194.014, F.S.) You are required to make a partial payment of taxes if you have a VAB petition pending on or after the payment delinquency date (normally April 1, following the assessment year under review). If the required partial payment is not made before the delinquency date, the VAB will deny your petition. The last day to make a partial payment before the delinquency date is generally March 31. Review your tax bill or contact your tax collector to determine your delinquency date_ You should be aware that even if a special magistrate's recommended decision has been issued, a partial payment is still required before the delinquency date. A special magistrate's recommended decision is not a final decision of the VAB. A partial payment is not required only if the VAB makes a final decision on your petition before April 1. The payment amount depends on the type of petition filed on the property. The partial payment requirements are summarized below. Value Appeals: For petitions on the value of property and portability, the payment must include: " All of the non -ad valorem assessments, and • A partial payment of at least 75 percent of the ad valorem taxes, * Less applicable discounts under s. 197.162, F.S. Other Assessment Appeals; For petitions on the denial of a classification or exemption, or based on an argument that the property was not substantially complete on January 1, the payment must include: . All of the non -ad valorem assessments, and • The amount of the ad valorem taxes the taxpayer admits in good faith to owe, • Less applicable discounts under s. 197.162, F.S. Exhibit #7 i1 W ! wili not be able to ElUtud: 011{1112026. OIAWN126, 0l1(1.121 Z6, 01 4W026. U1A17/7026, ()1/09=26,O1It1{)!21)2 , 01112l2,[12b, 01/ 1312026, 0111412026, 01115l2D26,01Ii6/2026, 1010112025, 1410=25, 1014312025, JOMW2025, WAV12025, iM81202.5, IOAN/2025,10110/2025. 101131"Z 5. 1011V2025, 10115/2025. 101161202.5, 10/1712025i 1012WO25, lr#211202.S,101220125, 10/2312025.1U 41ZO S, I0/27AD25.1MOM, 101291M5,10/30/2i125, 1 W3 $ =25, 111031207 5, 11l0412025, 1110512025, 11/0612025. 1110712025. 1 i1M025, 11111/2025. 11112rM5, i 11131202.5, # 1114l2025,1 1117=5, 11118/2025, 11/191202.5, i 11?l W25, 111-11 25, 11/24/2025. 1112512025. II12612M. 111271202-% 1IJ28 02.5, 1211}11202.4, 1M2=25. 12*31202.5, 121i1412OZ5. 12J051202-';, 12A18=.S. 1210120 5, 1VI=025, IV1112025, 1211212025, 12J1512025. tV1612025, 12J171202.5, t2J18/202s+ M19J2025, 12122121 2S+ 12123/M25, 12124P.025, 121251202.5. 1212W2025, 121291202.5. 1ZAt IZ{?25. 1V31/2025 Exhibit #7 Kevin C. Karnes, Lee County Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller 1NSTR# 2024000335904, DocType D, Pages 5, Recorded 12/13/2024 at 10:12 AM, DeputyClerk CDOUGLAS Rec Fees: S44.00 Deed Doc: $0.70 ERECORD Return to: Lowell Schoenfeld Green Schoenfeld & Kyle LLP 1380 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Fort Myers, Florida 33919 This Instrument Prepared By: Lowell Schoenfeld Green Schoenfeld & Kyle LLP 1380 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Parcel l.D.#:18-45-25-00-00003,9040 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED is made on A -ttto `1 z r 1) , 2024, between Holly E. Cosby (the "Grantor"), joined by her husband, Charlie R. Cosby, (a/k/a) Charles R. Cosby, III, whose address is 6211 Silver and Lewis Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33966, and Holly E. Cosby, or her successor(s), as Trustee(collectively, the "Trustee") o the Holl E. Cosby Revocablc Trust (the "Trust") created under Trust Agreement dated J ir, 2024 (the "Trust Agreement"), whose address is 6211 Silver and Lewis Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33966. Evidence of the Trustee's death shall consist of a certified copy of the death certificate. Evidence of the Trustee's disability shall consist of a certificate of two (2) licensed physicians establishing that the Trustee is incapable of performing the duties of Trustee of the aforesaid Trust Agreement. Evidence of the Trustee's resignation shall consist of a resignation, duly executed and acknowledged. WITNES SE1'H, that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the Trustee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and transfer unto the Trustee, those lands described as follows: See EXHIBIT A Site Address: 6211 Silver and Lewis Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33966 SUBJECT TO easements, restrictions and reservations of record. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. 01020045.DOCX/i Exhibit #8 INSTR# 2024000335904 Page Number: 2 of 5 THIS DEED HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF SURVEY OR TITLE EXAMINATION. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property in fee simple upon the trusts and for the uses and purposes herein and the Trust Agreement. AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Trustee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants, the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except any outstanding taxes. TOGETHER WITH full power and authority to improve, subdivide, protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber or otherwise manage and dispose of the Property or any part thereof pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 689.071, as the same may be amended. Any contract, obligation or indebtedness incurred or entered into by the Trustee in connection with the Property shall be as a Trustee of an express trust and not individually and the Trustee shall have no obligation whatsoever with respect to any such contract, obligation or indebtedness except only so far as the Property in the actual possession ofthe Trustee shall be applicable for the payment and discharge thereof; and it shall be expressly understood that any representations, warranties, covenants, undertakings and agreements of the Trustee are nevertheless made and intended not as personal representations, warranties, covenants, undertakings and agreements by the Trustee or for the purpose or with the intention of binding the Trustee personally, but are made and intended for the purpose of binding only the Property specifically described herein, and that no personal liability or personal responsibility is assumed by nor shall at any time be asserted or enforceable against the Trustee individually on account of any instrument executed by or on account of any representation, warranty, covenant, undertaking or agreement of the Trustee, either expressed or implied, all such personal liability, if any, being expressly waived and released and all persons and entities whomsoever and whatsoever shall be charged with notice of this condition from the date of the filing for record of this Deed. In no case shall any party dealing with the Trustee in relation to the Property, or to whom the Property or any part thereof shall be conveyed, contracted to be sold, leased or mortgaged by the Trustee, be obliged to see to the application of any purchase money, rent or money borrowed or advanced on the Property, or be obliged to see that the terms of the Trust Agreement have been complied with, or be obliged to inquire into the necessity or expediency of any act of the Trustee, or be obliged or privileged to inquire into any of the terms of the Trust Agreement; and every deed, trust deed, mortgage, lease or other instrument executed by the Trustee in relation to the Property shall be conclusive evidence oiozaoassmcx/i 2 Exhibit #8 INSTR# 2024000335904 Page Number: 3 of 5 in favor of every person relying upon or claiming under any such conveyance, lease or other instrument, (a) that at the time of the delivery thereof the trust created by this Deed and the Trust Agreement was in full force and effect, (b) that such conveyance or other instrument was executed in accordance with the terms, conditions and limitations contained in this Deed and the Trust Agreement or in some amendment thereof and binding upon all beneficiaries thereunder, (c) that the Trustee was duly authorized and empowered to execute and deliver every such deed, trust deed, lease, mortgage or other instrument and (d) if the conveyance is made to a successor or successors in trust, that such are fully vested with all the title, estate, rights, powers, authorities, duties and obligations of any predecessor in trust. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, each Grantor reserved in the Trust Agreement the right to reside upon the Property placed in the Trust as his or her permanent residence during his or her lifetime, it being his or her intention to retain the requisite beneficial interest and possessory right in and to the Property to comply with Florida Statutes Section 196.041, as the same may be amended from time to time, such that said beneficial interest and possessory right constitute in all respects "equitable title to real estate" as that term is used in Section 6, Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Grantor has hereunto set hand and seal on the day and year above written. Witnesseth: Y/ Lowell S_ Schoenfeld Printed Name 1380 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Fort Myers, Florida 33919 tness ignature S6 a-ff A/ Printed Name 1380 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Fort Myers, Florida 33919 0102SM5AOOVI C*I-A�� Holly E. Cosby, Grantor 6211 Silver and Lewis Lane Fort Myers, FL 33966 44-- Charlie R. Cosby 6211 Silver and Lewis bane Fort Myers, FL 33966 Exhibit #8 INSTR# 2024000335904 Pap Numbcr: 4 of 5 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ❑ physical presence or ❑ online notarization, on DO,.Cpj'142-, 2024, by Holly E. C sby, the Grantor, and husband Charlie R. Cosby, ❑ who are personally known to me or who have each produced a driver's license or as Identification. CjjCAROss Bu 17 s:Ntoy os, zozs " otary Public 0102e04svocx/1 4 Exhibit #8 INSTR# 2024000335904 Page Number: 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A Le al Descri tion AS PRA7U*4-C or aWAS' F"rAYVCVWNQ AM (OV N &OOK 1695 PRAGE JW27J t"A T -P.af'r Of' WE` " r,,2 4W YkE AFW tk' 7)-IE !;W 7. of t3r s7rcMW ra TOM"--4WJ- 4-S SOUhW, MAIvy --0 EAsr, ICE CC)V "f71", PZ-O'MIDA, LYING' jrA-Sr Cif" T.H-- i-04LGWNIC OESC RIOC ? LINE 4RCOY r Vi"Y A7- A dlU'Gtf Vr 0" THE NCdd tff LIA E OV SA IO SFic7rs wy 7$ i4hi1cm IS l2" 0 Rzir -A,-r tjv� 7-"E fvw Oam5im cN- xAzq "SECmw rg 7HEhft RL- SC07" TC? A mpwr CW aijF SQLf77-r U"jr OUr SSA;D S'-CTifJ" ?.a iQdWC" t� 7Z.5O_ 0 E7WO (;V- .i WO f tAf,- ALSO3 774'W KEAt ZOO.0 FEET 04r THE Af FeC7F THE N,- yf%i OW' WE JTW 4V&9' -'I'rO OFV as, -.qL5 a'Cv7T6 PrANIM-M " EA S'rr LQE 00tlfw rr. f Z eWIV A St1 W-4r,Cr M ROAZ7 M,,'W CPVMF TMV 504J-7H .50 FEET 714-'Rt"46z: ZA"7; A. %9D CNCCPr 7%f,9;7 -MLOFYIf+ 4' DCSCR18E-0 faAMOCL Jg- taf YY VZ: AT 775/7s AOR I�WE AS rT CDIf IEJR Or ME' Hi&E--VT .20040 s'7ECr cv- mys lvppr" , or, me eaoo?77- .ASr !„rt CIF Hou 7Ffmc-s r ,f'-* tiz, S£C77GW re. Ti?"w-c w& *5 s4w77K f7-4" C ,25 EAfir. '44-iU' GVVOYrr FZGSI4GA. THCNCE 5_CO22'?&-W htGVG 774F EA.Tr LUNU Or SAAD 7WAC770#V FG.q 6& t. 7.9 OrEEY 7�p AN IH TVT-5E C F7Gd v hr rH rt-tr VOU FH LINE [7F A � P M1AC "ON; 77.16WCe r.r ar cs' sL e#r� .�.+u a soJ Isar L ww idJMV S41.00 FEES 77-AMCN_45MM'rA&r. Fdp -vr9. 7.5 FEL-7- niir"Cr- N_5p--.8 4s-W.. s'da Y".S a7--E-r, r"EivcE >Y saw cr' 'iE F ve RLE7! To AN WTN TI4E NC ? 7' 6 LAME Of" T",r AfO M7" rf t 7Fl.E + Ct,1775f iir$ T Pam"#.• nLfENCf K. M SY?Q'L-, ALCWG M.AfO Ar007)4 LrV1W9' FZW;p f'Atw r 7"CR CV-. F'A MCCL CCWV it UWH .7 5 ACM" "GOP ' tom' LEA: aE-AMINGS ARE &ASEa OfV 7W E.A-W-r LANE Or 7; fE wEsr aY;P r 0 0MEa T' aP' 7 "C fv41W7 Y T,r'.2 ,CTF rtfC NCff THEAS r ,/,* ov mW -5u77f*rsr r ,-i op- 1 --cnc nl va row4zf op fs s Xii" RA;V=F --fi EAST I-CE-=OUM7Y FLCVWV.l AS $EAMINO a9 "CT TT? LIi EfrfEl�f7S. *TESTM/G7?CWS RESEFMV 770MF .AND ri�ldtr TS-� — WAY Or RFC 4qV. SUISLICC r rC' 'A C r.F 7"A T AfA r 7RE REVE.4.LE0 G y .AN ACCF.ARA7S AVOUNOARY '3YJRWY 0102804S.DOCX/1 5 Exhibit #8 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES This Agreement is made this 13th day of August, 2025, between the Lee County Value Adjustment Board, Post Office Box 2469, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398, (hereinafter referred to as "VAB"); and Law Office of Holly E. Cosby, P.A., 602 Center Road, Fort Myers, FL 33907, (hereinafter referred to as "Attorney"). In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. ATTORNEY'S DUTIES The Attorney will be employed by VAB as the Attorney representing the Lee County Value Adjustment Board. The Attorney will become familiar with the Florida Statutes concerning the VAB and any Florida Administrative Code or cases necessary in providing legal representation to the VAB. The Attorney shall report directly to the VAB and provide the VAB with legal advice on all matters necessary to protect its interest in performing VAB duties and responsibilities as prescribed by the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. 2. ETHICS OF ATTORNEY The Attorney will abide and perform all duties in accordance with the ethics of the profession in all federal, state, and municipal laws, regulations and ordinances relating to the practice of law. 3. COMPENSATION In consideration for the services rendered by the Attorney under this Agreement, the Attorney will receive a fee of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) per year (July 1 thru June 30). payable monthly, in arrears, in equal monthly installments. Attorney may not request an increase in the consideration set forth in this Paragraph 3 for a period of two (2) years. 4. CONFLICTS In the event of a potential conflict of interest the Attorney must expose such potential conflict to the VAB Clerk and the Minutes Department. In the event that Attorney is able to resolve a conflict, and perform Attorney's duties.as set forth herein without bias, Attorney shall be permitted to proceed pursuant to this Agreement without further delay. In the event that Attorney is unable to perform Attorney's duties as set forth herein without bias, Attorney shall secure alternate legal representation from another attorney or law firm, licensed and in good standing with The Florida Bar, to provide appropriate legal representation to the VAB during the period or event of conflict. Prior to any VAB action the Attorney must provide the VAB written notice (to the Clerk to the Value Adjustment Board and the Minutes Department, via U.S.P.S. Regular Mail, to PO Box 2469, Fort Myers Florida, 33902-2469 or via email, to VAB Administration and Clerk's Office County Records Services Manager) of a potential conflict of interest, the resolution of such conflict of interest, and if an alternate attorney is needed, Attorney shall include the name of the attorney or 1 law firm that will be providing legal representation to the VAB during the period or event of conflict. The VAB will be responsible for providing compensation to cover the cost of alternate legal services during the period of conflict at a rate not to exceed Attorney's hourly rate as set forth in Paragraph 9 herein. The Attorney is prohibited by Fla. Stat. Chapter 194 from representing any of the following parties in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes: A. The Property Appraiser's Office B. The Tax Collector's Office C. Any taxing authority (including cities and counties); or D. Any property owner. In the event of a conflict of interest, even though the Attorney will have secured alternate legal representation of the VAB as set forth above, the Attorney, including any partner, member or employee of the Attorney, cannot represent an applicant appearing before the VAB. This prohibition cannot be waived by the VAB. 5. LICENSE AND INSURANCE The Attorney will continue to maintain Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance in the amounts of $200,000.00 single limit and $600,000.00 aggregate limit ("Required Insurance"). The Attorney will maintain a valid and active license to practice law in the State of Florida, and agrees to immediately provide proof of the same upon written request by the VAB. 6. TERMS The term of this Agreement shall begin on August 13, 2025, shall apply retroactively from July 1, 2025, and shall continue until modified or terminated in writing by either the Attorney or the VAB. 7. RECORDS The Attorney will be responsible for keeping accurate records of the matters handled by the Attorney. All records will be maintained in accordance with Florida Public Records Law and the Florida Department of State Division of Library and Information Services. 8. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES The relationship created herein is not an employer/employee relationship. The Attorney is an independent contractor in charge of the manner and method of performing the work on behalf of the VAB. The Attorney has no authority to represent Lee County, the Lee County Board of Education, or any individual VAB Special Magistrate, and is hired solely to represent said VAB. 9. SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION The Attorney is required to present and provide legal counsel at all meetings of the VAB through the term of this contract. The Attorney is to provide necessary and adequate representation to the VAB at all times during the term of this Agreement, whether in attendance at meetings or hearings before the VAB or otherwise. The Attorney may not commence litigation on behalf of the VAB unless requested to do so by the VAB. Attorney agrees that Attorney shall commit the necessary time required to the VAB in any VAB year, which for purposes of this Agreement shall begin July 1 and end June 30. The Compensation as set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement shall compensate Attorney for the following regular VAB attorney and VAB designee functions: A. any and all good cause determinations for late filed petitions, rescheduled hearings and hearing attendance, B. recommendation worksheet reviews in order to ensure statutory and rule compliance, C. advise the VAB with regards to the portions of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code which govern Florida value adjustment boards, D. attendance at all VAB meetings, E. review, draft and- modify all local procedures, local forms, VAB contracts and notices sent to parties, and F. any other designated legal function of the VAB, including the duties set forth in Section 12D-9.009, F.A.C. Compensation, as set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement, shall not include any VAB matters which require litigation. In the event that the VAB becomes a party defendant to any civil suit, or in the event that the VAB requests that litigation be initiated on behalf of the VAB, Attorney shall represent the VAB to the extent that such representation does not exceed Attorney's competency level, and Attorney shall be compensated for any such litigation at a rate of Three Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($300.00) per hour. Additionally, Attorney shall be compensated for reasonable expenses incurred for all matters litigated, which shall be invoiced in a detailed manner, and shall be payable monthly, in arrears. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that any litigated matter requires representation which exceeds Attorney's competency level, Attorney shall be responsible for securing alternate legal representation for any such matter, and the VAB shall be responsible for any and all reasonable legal fees and costs from such alternate legal counsel. Additionally, in the event that Attorney secures alternate legal representation for any litigated matter which exceeds Attorney's competency level, Attorney shall assist such alternate attorney when Attorney is competent to assist, and such assistance shall be a designated legal function of the VAB as set forth in Section 9(f) of this Agreement. 10. TERMINATION The VAB has the right to terminate, decrease, or suspend the Attorney's services hereunder at any time with or without cause. In the event of termination or suspension, the Attorney will be compensated for all services performed and reasonable expenses incurred prior to the effective date of the termination or suspension. In the event of a decrease in said services, the parties may negotiate a reasonable adjustment in compensation hereunder. 11. NOTICE Any notice required to be given under the Agreement will be sufficient, if in writing, sent by 3 United States mail to the Attorney's business address stated herein, except as provided in Paragraph 4. 12: PUBLIC RECORDS A. IF ATTORNEY HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO ATTORNEY'S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, ATTORNEY SHALL CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT 239-533-2328, INFOVAB@LEECLERK.ORG and/or THE LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AT P.O. Box 2469, Fort Myers Florida, 33902-2469. B. Attorney must comply with all public record laws, including, but not limited to: i. Keep and maintain public records required by the VAB to perform the service. ii. Upon request from the VAB's custodian of public records, provide the VAB with a copy of the requested records or allow the records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes or as otherwise provided by law. iii. Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law for the duration of this Agreement term and following completion of this Agreement if Attorney does not transfer the records to the VAB. iv. Upon completion of this Agreement, transfer, at no cost, to the VAB all public records in possession of Attorney or keep and maintain public records required by the VAB to perform the contracted services. If Attorney transfers all public records to the VAB upon completion of this Agreement, Attorney shall destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. If Attorney keeps and maintains public records upon completion of this Agreement, Attorney shall meet all applicable requirements for retaining public records. All records stored electronically must be provided to the VAB, upon request from the VAB's custodian of public records, in a format that is compatible with the information technology systems of the VAB. C. A request to inspect or copy public records relating to VAB's contract for services must be made directly to the VAB. If the VAB does not possess the requested records, the VAB shall immediately notify Attorney of the request, and Attorney must provide the records to the VAB or allow the records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time. D. If Attorney does not comply with the VAB's request for records, the VAB shall enforce this Agreement provisions in accordance with this Agreement, and in the event that Attorney fails to provide public records to the VAB within a reasonable time may be subject to penalties under §119.10, Florida Statutes and further civil action, including any attorney fees associated therewith. 13. MISCELLANEOUS Amendments: No amendment or variation of the terms or conditions of this Agreement will be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties. 4 AssignabiRy: The Attomoy's rights and obligations under fts Agreement are personal and not assignable, except as provided in Paragraphs 4 and 9 herein_ Validity Prevision: The validity or unenforceability of any particular provision of this Agreement will not affect the other provisions here0fr and the Agreement may be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and year first written above. ATTEST: LEE COUNTY KEVIN C. KA NES - CLERK VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD omrnw1-'" i.'ec11 L rkn&rgr CjXirm,,, Oomner B B DEP ER - MK41SSIONER CCNDER RA S CHAIR LAW OFFICE OF HOLLY E. COSBY. PA BY. HOLLY E. COSBY FOR THE FIRM STATE OF FLORIOA COUNTY OF LEE i� Sworn to and acknowledged before me on this days ofA�k Q ] , by means of _ _ physical presence or online notarization by Holly E. Cosby, who is e nalliy known to me or has produced as identification. TA RY P K1 PRfiNTED S IGNATURE NOTPY PLJ C — — SEAL: .� MY COMMISSION EXPIRE 3 �CilIY�/Il � IYI �#11� �„ .� 1f�71R�Ywrr■ori00�7d1i From: Holly Cosby To: Claudia Curtin; InfoVAB Cc: Cecil L. Pendergrass Subject: RE: Legal Opinion Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 2:28:00 PM Thank you! Very truly, Holly -10 VV FFIC OSQB�YHOLLY E. COSBY, P.A. VG LATER I�.00RIDA 33907 2)3�iOr0v6 This electronic message transmission and any associated files and/or attachments contains information from the Law Office of Holly E. Cosby, P.A. that is considered confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please permanently delete this information and notify me immediately. Additionally, however, Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. Thank you. From: Claudia Curtin <ccurtin@leeclerk.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 2:28 PM To: Holly Cosby <vablawyer@outlook.com>; InfoVAB <InfoVAB@leeclerk.org> Cc: Cecil L. Pendergrass <dist2@leegov.com> Subject: RE: Legal Opinion Good Afternoon, VAB Administration has processed these withdrawals. Thank you, Claudia Curtin County Clerk & Records Management Manager Records Management Services 239-533-2761 1 leeclerk.ora From: Holly Cosby <VABlawyer(@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 1:48 PM To: InfoVAB <lnfoVAB(@leeclerk.org> Cc: Claudia Curtin <ccurtinCcDleeclerk.org>; Cecil L. Pendergrass <dist2Pleegov.com> Subject: RE: Legal Opinion Importance: High Good afternoon, again. I have completed and provided the withdrawal forms for all three matters to VAB Administration, as promised. Once VAB Administration has the opportunity to withdraw petitions 2025-00920, 2025-00921, and 2025-00922, this issue will be fully resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly, Holly O�L FEFIT OSBYHOLLY E. COSBY, P.A. /� NTER�1 DA 33907 2 ) 3�F�5()O6 This electronic message transmission and any associated files and/or attachments contains information from the Law Office of Holly E. Cosby, P.A. that is considered confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please permanently delete this information and notify me immediately. Additionally, however, Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. Thank you. From: Holly Cosby <vablawyer(@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 1:09 PM To: InfoVAB <InfoVABC@leeclerk.org> Cc: Claudia Curtin <ccurtinC@leeclerk.org>; Cecil L. Pendergrass <dist2(@Ieegov.com> Subject: FW: Legal Opinion Importance: High Good afternoon. After receiving this information for the first time, and after brief review of the same, I will be withdrawing my VAB petitions by the end of the day today, to ensure that my role as VAB Counsel is not questioned or compromised in any way. As a property owner and taxpayer, I have the right to file an appeal on my own properties; however at this time, I am not going to argue about this and erode any public trust in me as VAB Counsel. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly, Holly o AFA:� ICEOSBYHOLLY E. COSBY, P.A. NTER I�.00RIDA 33907 3��OrOV This electronic message transmission and any associated files and/or attachments contains information from the Law Office of Holly E. Cosby, P.A. that is considered confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please permanently delete this information and notify me immediately. Additionally, however, Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. Thank you. From: Flint, Melissa <FlintMCcDLeePA.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 12:43 PM To: dist2l@leegov.com Cc: KKarnesl@LeeClerk.org; vablawyerPoutlook.com; Honorable Matt Caldwell <CaldwellMCcDleepa.org> Subject: Legal Opinion Good Afternoon Chairman Pendergrass — Mr. Caldwell asked me to forward the attached on to you. Respectfully, M Vy Executive Assistant Lee County Property Appraiser's Office Email: FlintmCcDleepa.org Phone: (239) 533-6190 Internal Extension: 36190 Website: www.leepa.org •-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How did we do? We want to hear from you! http://www.leepa.org/Feedback/Feedback.aspx , Under Florida law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public records request, do not send email to the Lee County Property Appraiser Office. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. Lee County Property Appraiser Office , Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 Message g-r- TransactionID 4-0 TaxYear 4-0 PetitionNumber 7-0 PetitionDate V-0 PetitionTypeID g-r- PetitionType 4-0 PetitionCatec 1 4 2025 2025-00002 08/21/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 2 4 2025 2025-00004 08/21/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 3 7 2025 2025-00006 08/25/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 4 8 2025 2025-00008 08/25/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 5 9 2025 2025-00009 08/26/2025 97 Denial of request... EXEMPTION 6 10 2025 2025-00010 08/26/2025 97 Denial of request... EXEMPTION 7 12 2025 2025-00011 08/26/2025 126 Homestead EXEMPTION 8 15 2025 2025-00013 08/26/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 9 22 2025 2025-00019 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 10 25 2025 2025-00021 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 11 25 2025 2025-00022 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 12 25 2025 2025-00024 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 13 25 2025 2025-00027 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 14 25 2025 2025-00028 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 15 25 2025 2025-00029 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 16 25 2025 2025-00030 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 17 25 2025 2025-00031 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 18 25 2025 2025-00033 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 19 25 2025 2025-00035 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 20 25 2025 2025-00036 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 21 25 2025 2025-00037 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 22 27 2025 2025-00044 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 23 27 2025 2025-00045 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 24 27 2025 2025-00046 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION Message 7-0 TransactionID 4-0 TaxYear 4-0 PetitionNumber V-0 PetitionDate V-0 PetitionTypeID g-r- PetitionType 4-0 PetitionCatec 25 27 2025 2025-00047 08/29/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 26 24 2025 2025-00059 09/03/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 27 37 2025 2025-00084 09/03/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 28 38 2025 2025-00085 09/03/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 29 40 2025 2025-00087 09/03/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 30 42 2025 2025-00091 09/03/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 31 41 2025 2025-00092 09/03/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 32 52 2025 2025-00100 09/04/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 33 53 2025 2025-00101 09/04/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 34 54 2025 2025-00102 09/04/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 35 56 2025 2025-00111 09/04/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 36 = 56 2025 2025-00112 09/04/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 37 56 2025 2025-00113 09/04/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 38 56 2025 2025-00120 09/04/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 39 60 2025 2025-00122 09/05/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 40 60 2025 2025-00123 09/05/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 41 60 2025 2025-00124 09/05/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 42 51 2025 2025-00133 09/07/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 43 67 2025 2025-00134 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 44 66 2025 2025-00155 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 45 66 2025 2025-00162 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 46 66 2025 2025-00163 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 47 66 2025 2025-00164 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 48 66 2025 2025-00166 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION Message g-r- TransactionID 4-0 TaxYear 4-0 PetitionNumber V-0 PetitionDate V-0 PetitionTypeID g-r- PetitionType 4-0 PetitionCatec 49 66 2025 2025-00167 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 50 66 2025 2025-00168 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 51 66 2025 2025-00189 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 52 66 2025 2025-00190 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 53 66 2025 2025-00191 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 54 72 2025 2025-00202 09/08/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 55 73 2025 2025-00204 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 56 78 2025 2025-00225 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 57 78 2025 2025-00229 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 58 79 2025 2025-00235 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 59 81 2025 2025-00236 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 60 = 3 2025 2025-00237 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 61 3 2025 2025-00239 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 62 3 2025 2025-00241 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 63 3 2025 2025-00244 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 64 3 2025 2025-00246 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 65 83 2025 2025-00248 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 66 84 2025 2025-00249 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 67 85 2025 2025-00260 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 68 85 2025 2025-00261 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 69 85 2025 2025-00263 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 70 86 2025 2025-00264 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 71 89 2025 2025-00266 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 72 92 2025 2025-00268 09/09/2025 102 Transfer of Hom... EXEMPTION Message g-r- TransactionID 4-0 TaxYear 4-0 PetitionNumber V-0 PetitionDate V-0 PetitionTypeID g-r- PetitionType 4-0 PetitionCatec 73 93 2025 2025-00271 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 74 93 2025 2025-00272 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 75 93 2025 2025-00273 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 76 93 2025 2025-00274 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 77 93 2025 2025-00275 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 78 93 2025 2025-00291 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 79 93 2025 2025-00315 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 80 94 2025 2025-00321 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 81 94 2025 2025-00342 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 82 94 2025 2025-00348 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 83 94 2025 2025-00349 09/09/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 84 96 2025 2025-00402 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 85 97 2025 2025-00403 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 86 97 2025 2025-00404 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 87 97 2025 2025-00405 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 88 97 2025 2025-00406 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 89 97 2025 2025-00407 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 90 97 2025 2025-00408 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 91 97 2025 2025-00409 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 92 97 2025 2025-00410 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 93 110 2025 2025-00432 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 94 114 2025 2025-00436 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 95 114 2025 2025-00437 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION �96 116 2025 2025-00441 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION Message g-r- TransactionID 4-0 TaxYear 4-0 PetitionNumber V-0 PetitionDate V-0 PetitionTypeID g-r- PetitionType 4-0 PetitionCatec 97 117 2025 2025-00442 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 98 118 2025 2025-00444 09/10/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 99 82 2025 2025-00452 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 100 127 2025 2025-00456 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 101 128 2025 2025-00457 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 102 128 2025 2025-00458 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 103 126 2025 2025-00459 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 104 126 2025 2025-00467 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 105 126 2025 2025-00468 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 106 129 2025 2025-00471 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 107 135 2025 2025-00475 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 108 - 132 2025 2025-00476 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 109 - 132 2025 2025-00479 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 110 145 2025 2025-00526 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 111 150 2025 2025-00529 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 112 149 2025 2025-00530 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 113 149 2025 2025-00531 09/11/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 114 152 2025 2025-00532 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 115 152 2025 2025-00533 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 116 152 2025 2025-00536 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 117 153 2025 2025-00537 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 118 156 2025 2025-00540 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 119 151 2025 2025-00564 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 120 166 2025 2025-00568 09/12/2025 97 Denial of request... EXEMPTION Message g-r- TransactionID 4-0 TaxYear 4-0 PetitionNumber V-0 PetitionDate V-0 PetitionTypeID g-r- PetitionType 4-0 PetitionCatec 121 167 2025 2025-00569 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 122 160 2025 2025-00570 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 123 168 2025 2025-00571 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 124 74 2025 2025-00573 09/12/2025 102 Transfer of Hom... EXEMPTION 125 170 2025 2025-00574 09/12/2025 97 Denial of request... EXEMPTION 126 171 2025 2025-00575 09/12/2025 102 Transfer of Hom... EXEMPTION 127 174 2025 2025-00577 09/12/2025 102 Transfer of Hom... EXEMPTION 128 180 2025 2025-00607 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 129 183 2025 2025-00613 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 130 184 2025 2025-00614 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 131 181 2025 2025-00615 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 132 = 186 2025 2025-00617 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 133 186 2025 2025-00618 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 134 186 2025 2025-00619 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 135 187 2025 2025-00620 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 136 188 2025 2025-00621 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 137 189 2025 2025-00622 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 138 194 2025 2025-00629 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 139 195 2025 2025-00631 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 140 198 2025 2025-00636 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 141 198 2025 2025-00639 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 142 199 2025 2025-00642 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 143 199 2025 2025-00644 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 144 199 2025 2025-00646 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION Message 7-0 TransactionID 4-0 TaxYear 4-0 PetitionNumber V-0 PetitionDate V-0 PetitionTypeID g-r- PetitionType 4-0 PetitionCatec 145 199 2025 2025-00647 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 146 199 2025 2025-00648 09/12/2025 94 Real Property Val... VALUATION 147 215 2025 2025-00673 09/25/2025 102 Transfer of Hom... EXEMPTION 148 220 2025 2025-00678 10/09/2025 121 Exempt entity EXEMPTION 149 228 2025 2025-00684 12/04/2025 135 Service-connecte... EXEMPTION 150 234 2025 2025-00690 02/12/2026 130 Disabled, total a... EXEMPTION W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00002 Parcel ID 79322080001 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LLC Property 10951 GULF SHOREDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,411,875.00 1,411,875.00 1,411,875.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,411,875.00 1,411,875.00 1,411,875.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,411,875.00 1,411,875.00 1,411,875.00 *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 12/02/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00002 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00002: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Mark Mittleman from Property Tax Consultants, LLC., agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,411,875. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium, located on the 1 lth floor (interior unit), ocean view. The unit is located in Vanderbilt Gulfside PH I A Condominium, the building is located on the beach and all units have a view of the Gulf of Mexico. The unit has an area of 1,675-sf. The property was built in 1980. The property is located at 10951 Gulf Shore Drive #1103, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. 2025-00002 Page 2 of 5 PAO presented a report containing 42 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, general and property information, Limiting Conditions and Assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definition, scope of appraisal, trim notice, deed of the property with legal description, aerial and location maps, site plan, floor plan and subject photographs. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with floor plan and unit location in the building, and exterior photographs of each sale. PAO included F.S. 689.261-Sale of residential property; disclosure of ad valorem taxes to prospective purchaser. F.S. 193.1554- and F.S. 193.155. PAO included excerpts of the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, adopted in 2002 from the Florida Department of Revenue and Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines- property tax oversight. 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 presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved unit sales, two in subject building and two sales in the adjoining sister building. There are two buildings in this condominium complex and each building has 71 units for a total of 142 units in both buildings. Sales # 1 and 2 are the same size as the subject and are interior units on a different floor in subject building. Sales # 2 and # 3 are in the sister building and are interior units, smaller in size than the subject. The sales occurred from May 2024 to August 2024. The building was built in 1980. The units range in size from 1,570-sf to 1,675-sf. PAO made adjustments for time of sale at 0.70%/month or a minus adjustment of 3% to 5%; PAO adjusted for cost of sale at -15%. PAO indicated floor height adjustments at $ 1 0,000/floor above the 3rd floor, end unit at $12,000 and garage at $60,000, PAO did not adjustment for these three conditions. The adjusted sales range from $669.00/sf to $1,090.00/sf with a mean of all the sales at $908.00 and the median is $937.00/sf. PAO estimated a value of $937.00/sf for the subject or $1,569,475. PAO provided 5 sales of units that sold from January 2025 to September 2025; range in size from 1,570-sf to 2,003-sf and sold in the range of $1,024/sf to $1,298/sf. PAO did not place emphasis on the 2025 sales, nor did Special Magistrate. 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 11-pages and consisted of a cover page, subject property record and tax card, aerial photograph of subject, the property record card for 2025-00002 Page 3 of 5 the one sale provided and DR-493 form. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 1 improved unit sale located in the adjoining building, this sale is shared with PAO (Sale # 4). The unit sold for $1,300,000 ($828.00/sf) in May 2024 and contains 1,570-sf and is located on the 5th floor; the unit was renovated after the sale at a cost of $100,000. PET adjusted for cost of sales at -15% for an adjusted price of $703.81/sf. PET is requesting a value of $947,241. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's sale is the lowest sale price of all of PAO's sales provided and renovations were made to this unit after the sale. PAO indicated there were sales in subject building that are comparable to the subject and indicate a higher price/sf. PET had no rebuttal. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate sales, similar to the subject, in subject complex. PET provided one sale in the adjoining building and PET made no adjustments for time of sale, unit size or location of unit. PAO adjusted the sales for time of sale and cost of sales. SM made adjustments for floor location at $10,000/floor for units over the third floor as provided by PAO. PAO's sales adjusted for floor location, time of sale and cost of sales indicate a range in price from $631.00/sf to $1,053.00/sf with a median of $902.98, applied to 1,675-sf indicates a value of $1,512,500, which is higher than the just value of $1,411,875.00. 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 2025-00002: Florida Law allows 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 fails to prove by a preponderance of 2025-00002 Page 4 of 5 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00002 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00004 Parcel ID 20853750082 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LLC Property 4000 GULF SHOREBLVDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34103 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,150,320.00 2,150,320.00 2,054,165.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,144,907.00 2,144,907.00 2,054,165.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,144,907.00 2,144,907.00 2,054,165.00 *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 12/02/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00004 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00004: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Mark Mittleman from Property Tax Consultants, LLC., agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,150,320. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium, located in Venetian Villas A Condominium, in Park Shore subdivision. The building is located directly on Venetian Bay in a 32-villa community. The unit has an area of 2,280-sf., is located on the second floor with an elevator. The property was built in 1978. The property is located at 4000 Gulf Shore Drive #400, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. 2025-00004 Page 2 of 5 PAO presented a report containing 48 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, general and property information, Limiting Conditions and Assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definition, scope of appraisal, trim notice, deed of the property with legal description, aerial and location maps, site plan, floor plan and subject photographs. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with floor plan and unit location in the building, and exterior photographs of each sale. PAO included F.S. 689.261-Sale of residential property; disclosure of ad valorem taxes to prospective purchaser. F.S. 193.1554- and F.S. 193.155. PAO included excerpts of the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, adopted in 2002 from the Florida Department of Revenue and Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines- property tax oversight. 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 presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved unit sales, in subject complex. The sales occurred from February 2024 to November 2024. The building was built in 1978. The units range in size from 2,090-sf to 2,860-sf. PAO made adjustments for time of sale at 0.70%/month or a minus adjustment of 1 % to 5%; PAO adjusted for cost of sale at -15%. The adjusted sales range from $895.00/sf to $1,115.001 sf with a mean of all the sales at $947.00 and the median is $919.00/sf. PAO estimated a value of $919.00/sf on 2,280-sf for the subject or $2,095,320, which is lower than the just value of $2,150,320. 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 14-pages and consisted of a cover page, subject property record and tax card, aerial photograph of subject, the property record card for three sales provided and DR-493 form. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 3 improved unit sales located in the subject complex. The three sales are shared by PAO's sales # 1,2 and 6. These sales sold from March 2024(sale # 6) to November 2024 (sales # 1 & 2). The sales range in size from 2,335-sf to 2,860-sf. The units sold from $927.00/sf to $1,085.00/sf. PET adjusted for cost of sales at -15% for an adjusted price of $787.58/sf to $921.97/sf. 2025-00004 Page 3 of 5 PET indicated Sale # 1 is the most comparable to the subject with an adjusted price of $900.95/sf As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's sale # 1 has an elevator, similar to the subject, this unit was renovated after the sale and Sale # 3 (PAO's sale # 6 sold in 3/23 for $1,108.16.sf and again in 3/24 for $939.72/sf. PAO indicated the seller found a unit they wanted more and sold this unit at a loss. PET had no rebuttal. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO and PET provided adequate sales, similar to the subject, in subject complex. PAO adjusted the sales for time of sale and cost of sales. PET indicated PET's sale # 1 and PAO's sale # 2 is most comparable to the subject in size also, the unit has an elevator similar to the subject, PET adjusted this sale at $900.95/sf and PAO adjusted this sale at $895.00/sf. SM considers this sale most comparable in size and location; SM has estimated the value at $900.95/sf or $2,054,165. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00004: 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 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 2025-00004 Page 4 of 5 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $2,054,165 rounded. 2025-00004 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00006 Parcel ID 22455701521 Petitioner name CHENETTE REV TRUST Property 7805 ASHTONRD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34113 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 967,990.00 967,990.00 774,650.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 539,816.00 539,816.00 539,816.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 539,816.00 539,816.00 539,816.00 *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 10/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00006 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00006: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. On the telephone, the Petitioners (PET) were Paul and Diane Chenette, owners of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $967,990. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling. The base building area is 1,867-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,323-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .18 acres or 8,712-sf. The property was built in 2007, with an effective age of 2007. The property is located at 7805 Ashton Road, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 2025-00006 Page 2 of 5 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 32 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for history for the subject and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 5 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to October 2024. The lots range in size from 6,534-sf to 10,018.8-sf. The sales range in value from $42.06/sf to $89.67/sf. PAO adjusted the land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $63.00/sf x 8,712-sf = $5491105. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $41,000; impact fees are estimated at $12,084; depreciated building cost is estimated at $427,846; the land value is estimated at $549,105 for a total cost of $1,030,035. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to October 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,631-sf to 2,046-sf and adjusted building size of 2,008-sf to 2,588-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 6,534-sf to 10,018-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2006 to 2015. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 14%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $393.00 to $554.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $460.00/sf and a median of $458.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $458.00/sf of building area including land on 2,323-sf or $1,065,000 rounded. PET's evidence consisted of a 1-page letter with a sales summary. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided information on the reduction in value in subject neighborhood by 2025-00006 Page 3 of 5 providing 6 comparable sales. All sales occurred in 2025, after the first quarter of 2025 The sales provided by PET range from $725,000 to $850,000 for building sizes ranging from 1,954-sf to 1,975-sf under air. PET made no adjustments for differences in size and features. PET indicated the subject is a courtyard home and these types of homes are selling at a lower price than regular homes, the difference being the pool is located on the side of the building and not the back. PET provided sales of 2 courtyard homes that sold in the range of $725,000 to $760,000 and the remaining sales sold from $780,000 to $850,000, which are not courtyard homes. PET indicated the just value in 2024 was $770,862 and the current value is $967,990, a substantial increase from the previous year, when the market remained stable or declined slightly in 2024. PET indicated the land value for the subject has increased substantially over the past few years with no indication or support for the increase. As rebuttal, PAO indicated all of PET's sales occurred in 2025 after the date of value of l/l/2025 and PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability and values have declined in 2025, PET's 2025 sales are not relevant for the current value date of 1/1/2024 and is a different market (slightly lower in value) than in 2024. PAO indicated the value of the property is determined as a whole and not a separate value for the land and building, the Sales Comparison Approach is most indicative of value for the subject. PAO indicated the value from prior years has no relevance to this year's value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. PET provided 2025 sales which indicate a difference in value between the courtyard homes and the regular homes in subject neighborhood; from these sales SM has estimated a difference in value of approximately -5%. PAO used sales in the same area (not the same neighborhood) as the subject and all sales are regular homes, not courtyard homes. PAO made a positive adjustment for the land size on all the sales, sales # 2 and 3 are larger than the subject and PAO made a positive adjustment, when a negative adjustment should have been made. Of all of PAO's sales, sale # 4 is the closest to the subject, similar and age and similar to the subject in land (7,841-sf) and building size(12,158-sf adj.). PAO made a substantial positive adjustment to the land size for this sale at $179.04/sf for the difference in land size from the subject to the sale, the other sales have a land adjustment of $37.69 and $62.00/sf for the difference in size. SM has used $62.00/sf on a difference in land size between the subject and the sale of 872-sf for a total of $54,000 rounded; SM has made a -5% adjustment to the adjusted sale price of-$37,600 for the courtyard unit. The total adjustments are + $21,503. The time and cost of sale adjusted price for is sale is $753,143 + $21,503 = $774,650 rounded. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial 2025-00006 Page 4 of 5 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00006: 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 did not arrive at the assessment by complying with these standards, PAO's value is overstated. PAO did not establish 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). Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $774,650. 2025-00006 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00008 Parcel ID 71750000305 Petitioner name AMG PROPERTY TAX CONSULTING SER\ Property 4930 TAM IAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34113 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 15,169,872.00 15,169,872.00 15,169,872.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 14,224,521.00 14,224,521.00 14,224,521.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 14,224,521.00 14,224,521.00 14,224,521.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. There is no good cause request pending and the petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition heard without their attendance. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00008 Page 1 of 2 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00008: Pursuant to FAC 12D-9.021(8), relief should be denied, and this recommendation is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00008 Page 2 of 2 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00009 Parcel ID 67965022001 Petitioner name SHAINA STAHL, ESQ Property 7725 TARACIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ representative address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 23,387,967.00 23,387,967.00 23,387,967.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 17,543,458.00 17,543,458.00 17,543,458.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 17,368,023.00 17,368,023.00 17,368,023.00 4. Taxable value,* required 175,435.00 175,435.00 175,435.00 *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, specifh(ffordable Housina ❑Transfer of homestead assessment difference ❑Qualifying improvement ❑Change of ownership or control ❑pther,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 E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/07/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00009 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Capri W Tic LLC., who owns a multi -family residential property located at 7725 Tara Circle, Naples, FL 34104. Petitioner was represented by Attorney Shaina Stahl, who appeared by phone and identified herself by her Florida Bar number. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. Ybaceta and Earle remained under oath from the morning. Ms. Stahl was sworn in. This appeal concerns the denial of a multifamily project affordable housing exemption under s. 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat., for 2 of the 235 units in the project. The parties agreed to consolidate this appeal with Petition No. 10, due to the undisputed nature of the facts pertaining to these two properties and the same legal question regarding the denial. The PAO offered its 32-page evidence packet, which was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1. Ms. Stahl offered her evidence notebook, consisting of 150 pages, organized under 23 tabs, which was admitted without objection as P. Composite Ex. 1. When referring to the evidence, the specific tab will be identified. Petitioner is a multi -family project as defined by Florida Statute. [Ybaceta; Stahl] This is not disputed. Petitioner applied for its annual exemption as a multifamily project under s. 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat. on February 17, 2025. [P. Ex. 1, Tab 14] Petitioner is subject to a recorded agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, and its extension under an Extended Low Income Housing Agreement ("LURA"). [P. Ex. 1, Tabs 15-16] The Application was approved as to 233 units and denied as to 2 units. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, pp. 8, 22-23] The Notice of Disapproval was issued by the PAO on May 14, 2025, on grounds that those disapproved units were not providing housing meeting the extremely -low income, very -low income and low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004, Fla. Stat. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 23). The Notice of Disapproval conforms with s. 196.193(5), insofar as it explains the basis for the denial of the two units and the common areas with sufficient clarity and detail and, therefore, is valid. In determining whether the applicant qualified for the multifamily project exemption, the PAO reviewed the FHFC Program Report -Recap of Tenant Income Certification Information generated from the property tenant rolls. The period reported was the month of December, 2024. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 12-21) In reviewing the reported income limits on the report, the PAO found two units with income over the limits for low, very low and extremely low income as defined in s. 420.0004, Fla. Stat. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, p.8] Conclusions of Law: Petitioner appeals the denial by the Property Appraiser of two units in a multi -family project that exceed the low-income levels defined in s. 420.0004, Fla. Stat. There is no 2025-00009 Page 2 of 5 dispute that Petitioner qualifies as a multi -family affordable housing project under s. 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat., or that these units exceed the income levels specified in s. 420.0004. The issue in this appeal is whether the denial of units that fail to meet the income limits in s. 420.0004, on January 1 st, but otherwise continue to qualify as low- income residents under federal law, FHFC guidelines and the statutorily required LURA, is proper. This question is a purely legal one, requiring the construction of Section 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat. Section 196.1978(2)(a), Fla. Stat., provides that a multi -family project that has completed its fifteenth year of service as an affordable housing property is considered property used for a charitable purpose and "is exempt from ad valorem tax beginning with the January 1 assessment after the 15th completed year." Subsection (2)(b) states that "the multifamily project must: 1. contain more than 70 units that are used to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, very -low income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; and 2. be subject to an agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation recorded in the official records of the county in which the property is located to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low income, very -low income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004." The parties agree that Petitioner meets these standards, and the relevant and credible evidence is sufficient to establish these facts. [Stahl; Ybaceta] Section 196.1978(2)(d),states that "this exemption terminates if the property no longer serves extremely -low income, very -low income or low-income persons pursuant to the recorded agreement." Accordingly, the PAO argues the exemption is applied to those "portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to persons meeting the income standards of s. 420.0004." Section 420.0004, Fla. Stat., defines "low-income persons" as those persons with a total annual adjusted gross household income that does not exceed 80% of the median annual adjusted gross income for households within the state, metropolitan statistical area or the county in which the person resides, whichever is greater. Because the income levels reported on the Report showed that two of the units had household income that exceeded the standard in s. 420.0004, the PAO denied the exemption for those particular units. [Ybaceta] Petitioner argues that s. 196.1978(2) allows a project to maintain its exemption for low income housing even when household incomes for particular residents increase above the stated limits as long as those residents were in compliance upon commencement of their lease. The same applies to units that are vacant as of January 1. [Stahl] This principle helps serve the salutary purpose behind affordable housing, per Stahl, to help provide low income families with stable housing, thereby giving them the opportunity to advance their economic status. Petitioner cites to numerous federal regulations, specific sections of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Compliance Guidebook relating to vacant units and increases in income, as well as the LURA, all of which recognize that the increase in income over the life of the tenancy as well as a vacancy of a rent restricted 2025-00009 Page 3 of 5 unit will not terminate its eligibility as an affordable housing unit. Petitioner argues that because the two units continue to meet the low-income standards under the statutorily required LURA, FHFC guidelines and federal law, the entire project provides housing to low-income persons thereby meeting the standards of s. 420.0004, and entitling it to a full exemption. This very concept is expressly contained in s. 196.1978(1)(a) which permits extension of the affordable housing exemption when the income levels of tenants no longer meet the income limits of this subsection. This subsection states that "[U]nits that are vacant and units that are occupied by natural persons or families whose income no longer meets the income limits to this subsection, but whose income met those income limits at the time they became tenants, shall be treated as portions of the affordable housing property exempt under this subsection if a records land use restriction agreement in favor of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or any other governmental or quasi -governmental jurisdiction requires that all residential units within the property be used in a manner that qualifies for the exemption under this subsection and if the units are being offered for rent." Unfortunately for Petitioner, subsection (2) does not contain similar language. Petitioner argues that both subsections contain the important requirement for the exemption, i.e., property that provides affordable housing for persons or families meeting the income limits specified in s. 420.0004. As such, argues Petitioner, this language should have the same meaning when used throughout s. 196.1978. This argument fails for a number of reasons. First, Petitioner grafts the caveat articulated in subsection (1)(a) onto the meaning of meeting low-income limits of s. 420.0004 and then argues that this applies throughout the various affordable housing exemptions. This caveat was specifically added after the original language in (1)(a), and can just as easily be read as qualifying or modifying the phrase "meeting the low-income limits of s. 420.0004." Second, when construing a statute, one must look first at the plain and obvious meaning of the words. Crapo v. University Cove Partners, Ltd., 298 So. 3d 697, 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Here, Petitioner would have the PAO impose an interpretation of "meeting income standards of s. 420.0004," as including federal statutory and regulatory standards as to what qualifies as affordable housing. Although it may make sense from a policy perspective to look back to the commencement date of the lease, the statute clearly refers to the income limits of s. 420.0004, and those specific categories of low income are expressly and clearly defined in that statute. In addition, that statute does not incorporate or even mention any federal statutes or regulations. Third, when the legislature has created an exception in statutory language, it has proven its understanding of the exception and its ability to make provision for that exception. Thereafter, the failure of the legislature to provide similar relief in another portion of a statute, is presumed to be intentional. Section 196.1978(1) was amended in 2020 to include the aforecited language that excepts those families exceeding the income limits if 2025-00009 Page 4 of 5 they met those limits when they became tenants. The legislature has clearly shown its understanding of this concept of continued compliance for units exceeding the income limits, as provided for in the LURA and federal law, by adding it to s. 196.1978(l). Although subsection (2) existed at that time, the legislature chose not to include a similar provision in it. The legislature also amended the reference in this paragraph from "section" to "subsection," making it evident that these two "subsections" under s. 196.1978 are to operate independently of each other. Although the legislature could have included this very language in subsection (2) which addressed older affordable housing projects, it elected not to. Even when additional changes were made to subsection (2) in 2021 to provide for an exemption instead of a discount, this language was not added to subsection (2) to permit the inclusion of vacant units or those units where the tenant's income no longer meets the income levels of s. 420.0004. The statute was amended again in 2024 to add another situation where affordable housing projects may qualify for tax exemption by creating subsection (4). Although some of the provisions in this new subsection were lifted whole cloth from subsection (2), subsection (2) remained unchanged. Unless expressly exempted, all real property in the state is subject to taxation. § 196.001 (1), Fla. Stat. (2005). While certain properties may qualify for an exemption, tax exemptions are highly disfavored and are strictly construed against the party claiming them. See Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 642 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 1994). The claimant has the burden to show entitlement to tax exemption, and any ambiguity should be resolved against the taxpayer and against exemption. Volusia Cty. v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 1976); Markham v. PPI, Inc., 843 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Parrish v. Pier Club Apartments, LLC, 900 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Petitioner had the burden of proof in this matter to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of a tax exemption for these two units was wrong. The credible and relevant evidence supported the factual bases presented by the parties, i.e., the tax exempt status of the property and the number of units whose reported income exceeded the limits as defined in s. 420.0004 on January 1. Petitioner failed to meet its burden to present any evidence that would otherwise entitle these two units to an exemption. As for the legal question regarding the intent and application of s. 196.1978 (2), the plain meaning doctrine and the strict construction afforded tax exemptions in this state require a reading of s. 196.1978)(2), Fla. Stat., that only those units qualifying as providing affordable housing to persons meeting the income limits of s. 420.0004 are exempt from taxation. Because the evidence supported a finding that two units exceeded those income limits and were therefore ineligible for an exemption, the evidence was insufficient to show that the PAO's denial in this matter was improper. The PAO is not legally required to grant an exemption for units that no longer meet the income limits as of January 1 of the tax year in question. The Special Magistrate, therefore, recommends that the Petition be denied. 2025-00009 Page 5 of 5 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00010 Parcel ID 00197960008 Petitioner name SHAINA STAHL, ESQ Property 11086 WINDSONGCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ representative address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 11,114,523.00 11,114,523.00 11,114,523.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 11,114,523.00 11,114,523.00 11,114,523.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 8,558,183.00 8,558,183.00 8,558,183.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,556,340.00 2,556,340.00 2,556,340.00 *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, specifh(ffordable Housina ❑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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/07/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00010 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Windsong Club Apartments, LLC., who owns a multi -family residential property located at 11086 Windsong Circle, Naples, FL 34109. Petitioner was represented by Attorney Shaina Stahl, who appeared by phone and identified herself by her Florida Bar number. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. Ybaceta and Earle remained under oath from the morning. Ms. Stahl was sworn in. This appeal concerns the denial of a multifamily project affordable housing exemption under s. 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat., for 28 of the 120 units in the project. The parties agreed to consolidate this appeal with Petition No. 9, due to the undisputed nature of the facts pertaining to these two properties and the same legal question regarding the denial. The PAO offered its 27-page evidence packet, which was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1. Ms. Stahl offered her evidence notebook, consisting of 156 pages, organized under 24 tabs, which was admitted without objection as P. Composite Ex. 1. When referring to the evidence, the specific tab will be identified. Petitioner is a multi -family project as defined by Florida Statute. [Ybaceta; Stahl] This is not disputed. Petitioner applied for its annual exemption as a multifamily project under s. 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat. on February 17, 2025. [P. Ex. 1, Tab 14] Petitioner is subject to a recorded agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and a First and Second Amendment to Land Use Restriction Agreement ("LURA") [P. Ex. 1, Tabs 15-17] The application for exemption was approved as to 92 units and denied as to 28 units. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, pp. 8, 17-18] The Notice of Disapproval was issued by the PAO on May 14, 2025, on grounds that those disapproved units are not providing housing meeting the extremely -low income, very -low income and low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004, Fla. Stat. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 18). The Notice of Disapproval conforms with s. 196.193(5), insofar as it explains the basis for the denial of the twenty-eight units with sufficient clarity and detail and, therefore, is valid. In determining whether the applicant qualified for the multifamily project exemption, the PAO reviewed the FHFC Program Report -Recap of Tenant Income Certification Information generated from the property tenant rolls. The period reported was the month of December, 2024. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 12-21) In reviewing the reported income limits on the report, the PAO found twenty-eight units with income over the limits for low, very low and extremely low income as defined in s. 420.0004, Fla. Stat. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, p•8] Conclusions of Law: Petitioner appeals the denial by the Property Appraiser of twenty-eight units in a multi- family project that exceed the low-income levels defined in s. 420.0004, Fla. Stat. There 2025-000 ] 0 Page 2 of 6 is no dispute that Petitioner qualifies as a multi -family affordable housing project under s. 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat., or that these units exceed the income levels specified in s. 420.0004. The issue in this appeal is whether the denial of units that fail to meet the income limits in s. 420.0004, on January 1 st, but otherwise continue to qualify as low- income residents under federal law, FHFC guidelines and the statutorily required LURA, is proper. This question is a purely legal one, requiring the construction of Section 196.1978(2), Fla. Stat. Section 196.1978(2)(a), Fla. Stat., provides that a multi -family project that has completed its fifteenth year of service as an affordable housing property is considered property used for a charitable purpose and "is exempt from ad valorem tax beginning with the January 1 assessment after the 15th completed year." Subsection (2)(b) states that "the multifamily project must: 1. contain more than 70 units that are used to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, very -low income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; and 2. be subject to an agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation recorded in the official records of the county in which the property is located to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low income, very -low income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004." The parties agree that Petitioner meets these standards, and the relevant and credible evidence is sufficient to establish these facts. [Stahl; Ybaceta] Section 196.1978(2)(d),states that "this exemption terminates if the property no longer serves extremely -low income, very -low income or low-income persons pursuant to the recorded agreement." Accordingly, the PAO argues the exemption is applied to those "portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to persons meeting the income standards of s. 420.0004." Section 420.0004, Fla. Stat., defines "low-income persons" as those persons with a total annual adjusted gross household income that does not exceed 80% of the median annual adjusted gross income for households within the state, metropolitan statistical area or the county in which the person resides, whichever is greater. Because the income levels reported on the Report showed that twenty-eight of the units had household income that exceeded the standard in s. 420.0004, the PAO denied the exemption for those particular units. [Ybaceta] Petitioner argues that s. 196.1978(2) allows a project to maintain its exemption for low income housing even when household incomes for particular residents increase above the stated limits as long as those residents were in compliance upon commencement of their lease. The same applies to units that are vacant as of January 1. [Stahl] This principle helps serve the salutary purpose behind affordable housing, per Stahl, to help provide low income families with stable housing, thereby giving them the opportunity to advance their economic status. Petitioner cites to numerous federal regulations, specific sections of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Compliance Guidebook relating to vacant units and increases in income, as well as the LURA, all of which recognize that the increase in income over the life of the tenancy as well as a vacancy of a rent restricted 2025-00010 Page 3 of 6 unit will not terminate its eligibility as an affordable housing unit. Petitioner argues that because the twenty-eight units are considered as continuing to meet the low-income standards under the statutorily required LURA, FHFC guidelines and federal law, the entire Project provides housing to low-income persons thereby meeting the standards of s. 420.0004, and entitling it to an exemption. This very concept is expressly contained in s. 196.1978(1) which permits extension of the affordable housing exemption when the income levels of tenants no longer meet the income limits of this subsection. This subsection states that "[U]nits that are vacant and units that are occupied by natural persons or families whose income no longer meets the income limits to this subsection, but whose income met those income limits at the time they became tenants, shall be treated as portions of the affordable housing property exempt under this subsection if a records land use restriction agreement in favor of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or any other governmental or quasi -governmental jurisdiction requires that all residential units within the property be used in a manner that qualifies for the exemption under this subsection and if the units are being offered for rent." Unfortunately for Petitioner, subsection (2) does not contain similar language. Petitioner argues that both subsections contain the important requirement for the exemption, i.e., property that provides affordable housing for "persons or families meeting the extremely -low income, very -low income, or moderate -income limits specified in s. 420.0004." As such, argues Petitioner, this language should have the same meaning when used throughout s. 196.1978. This argument fails for a number of reasons. First, Petitioner grafts the caveat articulated in subsection (1)(a) onto the meaning of "meeting low-income standards" of s. 420.0004 and then argues that this applies throughout the various affordable housing exemptions. This caveat was specifically added after the original language in (1)(a), and can just as easily be read as qualifying or modifying the phrase "meeting the low-income limits of s. 420.0004." Second, when construing a statute, one must look first at the plain and obvious meaning of the words. Crapo v. University Cove Partners, Ltd., 298 So. 3d 697, 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Here, Petitioner would have the PAO impose an interpretation of "meeting income standards of s. 420.0004," as including federal statutory and regulatory standards to as what qualifies as affordable housing. Although it may make sense from a policy perspective to look back to the commencement date of the lease, the statute clearly refers to the income limits of s. 420.0004, and those specific categories of low income are expressly and clearly defined in that statute. In addition, that statute does not incorporate or even mention any federal statutes or regulations. Third, when the legislature has created an exception in statutory language, it has proven its understandiung of the exception and its ability to make provision for that exception. Thereafter, the failure of the legislature to provide similar relief in another portion of a statute, is presumed to be intentional. Section 196.1978(1) was amended in 2020 to 2025-00010 Page 4 of 6 include the aforecited language that excepts those families exceeding the income limits if they met those limits when they became tenants. The legislature has clearly shown its understanding of this concept of continued compliance for units exceeding the income limits (and vacant units) as provided for in the LURA and federal law by adding it to s. 196.1978(1). Although subsection (2) existed at that time, the legislature chose not to include a similar provision in it. The legislature also amended the reference in this paragraph from "section" to "subsection," making it evident that these two "subsections" under 196.1978 are to operate independently of each other. Although the legislature could have included this very language in subsection (2) which addressed older affordable housing projects, it elected not to. Even when additional changes were made to subsection (2) in 2021 to provide for an exemption instead of a discount, this language was not added to subsection (2) to permit the inclusion of vacant units or those units where the tenant's income no longer meets the income levels of s. 420.0004. The statute was amended again in 2024 to add another situation where affordable housing projects may qualify for tax exemption by creating subsection (4). Although some of the provisions in this new subsection were lifted whole cloth from subsection (2), subsection (2) remained unchanged. Unless expressly exempted, all real property in the state is subject to taxation. § 196.001 (1), Fla. Stat. (2005). While certain properties may qualify for an exemption, tax exemptions are highly disfavored and are strictly construed against the party claiming them. See Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 642 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 1994). The claimant has the burden to show entitlement to tax exemption, and any ambiguity should be resolved against the taxpayer and against exemption. Volusia Cty. v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 1976); Markham v. PPI, Inc., 843 So. 2d 9221 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Parrish v. Pier Club Apartments, LLC, 900 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Petitioner had the burden of proof in this matter to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of a tax exemption for these twenty-eight units was wrong. The credible and relevant evidence supported the factual bases presented by the parties, i.e., the tax exempt status of the property and the number of units whose reported income exceeded the limits as defined in s. 420.0004 on January 1. Petitioner failed to meet its burden to present any evidence that would otherwise entitle these twenty-eight units to an exemption. As for the legal question regarding the intent and application of s. 196.1978(2), the plain meaning doctrine and the strict construction afforded tax exemptions in this state require the conclusion that s. 196.1978)(2), Fla. Stat., requires that only those units qualifying as providing affordable housing to persons meeting the income limits of s. 420.0004 are exempt from taxation. Because the evidence supported a finding that twenty-eight units exceeded those income limits and were therefore ineligible for an exemption, the evidence was insufficient to show that the PAO's denial in this matter was improper. The PAO is not legally required to grant an exemption for 2025-000 ] 0 Page 5 of 6 units that no longer meet the income limits as of January 1 of the tax year in question. The Special Magistrate, therefore, recommends that the Petition be denied. 2025-000 ] 0 Page 6 of 6 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00011 Parcel ID 52556000382 Petitioner name CHASE. CAROL Q JEFFREY E Property 380 GABRIEL CIR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 283,704.00 283,704.00 283,704.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 283,704.00 283,704.00 283,704.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 283,704.00 1 283,704.00 1 283,704.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition 0 Homestead ❑ 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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 10/30/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00011 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact: Petitioner, Carol and Jeffrey Chase, own a residence at 380 Gabriel Circle, #3407, Naples, Florida, and are challenging the denial of their homestead application for 2025. Petitioner appeared remotely by telephone and identified themselves by providing their Florida Driver's license numbers. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. All parties were sworn in. Ms. Ybaceta confirmed the values being disputed. The PAO's 27-page evidence package was admitted without objection as PAO's Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner did not offer their evidence package. Petitioner applied for their homestead exemption on January 14, 2025. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 9-10) The application was denied on April 23, 2025. (PAO Ex. 1, p.24) The denial adequately explained the basis for the denial in accordance with s. 196.193(5)(b), Fla. Stat., and was valid. All residency documents were issued on January 14, 2025. [PAO Ex. 1, pp.11-24] Petitioner testified that they established their primary residence on January 14, 2025. This was confirmed by the statements in the application, issue dates of their Florida driver's licenses and voter registrations and the recorded declarations of domicile. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 9-23) Petitioner owned a home in Pennsylvania (PA) along with the subject property. The PA home was their primary residence and was sold on December 16, 2024. [Chase] Petitioner purchased a second home in Delaware but that sale didn't close until January 231 2025. During that time, they declared PA as their "official" residence in order to maintain insurance on the PA registered vehicle. [Chase] Conclusions of Law: This petition is an appeal from the denial of a homestead exemption for 2025. Although the Petitioner has owned the residence since 2021, they maintained their permanent (primary) residence in Pennsylvania. [Chase; Ybaceta] 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 ... upon establishment of the right thereto in the manner prescribed by law." Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. The Florida legislature has enacted laws that dictate how and when this homestead exemption can be established. 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...." Therefore, when determining whether the 2025-00011 Page 2 of 3 property owner is entitled to an exemption, the operative date is January 1. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. Petitioner decided to sell their homestead in Pennsylvania and make Florida their state of permanent residence in 2024. [Chase] Although the sale of the PA home closed in December of 2024, Petitioner's vehicle was still licensed in PA as they were waiting to close on a new home in Delaware before making the permanent change of residence to Florida. In order to maintain their automobile insurance, they had to claim PA as their residence. [Chase] Section 196.015, Fla. Stat., states that "intention to establish a permanent residence in this state is a factual determination to be made, in the first instance, by the property appraiser," and then goes on to list a number of factors to be considered. Although these factors may be determinative in most instances, they are not all-inclusive. In this instance, five of those factors were present, with all valid residency documents having the date of January 14, 2025. Perhaps most importantly, Petitioner stated unequivocably that they did not intend to make the Florida property their permanent residence until January 14, 2025, as stated on the application. With that admission, there was no factual or legal dispute to be decided. The Special Magistrate has no discretion to grant a homestead exemption for a home established after January 1. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the credible and relevant evidence presented that the Property Appraiser's denial in this instance was wrong. The evidence presented by the PAO was credible and relevant. The oral testimony of both Carol and Jeffrey Chase was credible, corroborated the PAO's evidence and ultimately supported the Property Appraiser's decision in this instance. Weighing all the credible and relevant evidence presented by the parties, the Special Magistrate concludes that the evidence was insufficient to meet Petitioner's burden in this cause, and recommends that the Petition be denied. 2025-0001 ] Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00013 Parcel ID 57656360008 Petitioner name RICH ADAMS Property 1113 LAMPLIGHTER CT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,026,574.00 4,026,574.00 4,026,574.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,026,574.00 4,026,574.00 4,026,574.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,026,574.00 4,026,574.00 4,026,574.00 *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 10/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00013 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00013: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Robert Epperson. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $4,026,574. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-000 ] 3 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00019 Parcel ID 51565000756 Petitioner name TRINH, CECILIA Property 13001 PARKTREECT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 391,750.00 346,720.00 346,720.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 255,015.00 255,015.00 255,015.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 204,293.00 204,293.00 204,293.00 *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 12/02/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00019 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00019: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Ms. Carla Allegro. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $346,720. The value has changed since the TRIM notice from $391,750. 2025-000 ] 9 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00021 Parcel ID 00155000007 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 13303 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 26,742,133.00 26,742,133.00 26,742,133.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 26,742,133.00 26,742,133.00 26,742,133.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 26,742,133.00 26,742,133.00 26,742,133.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00021 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00021: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $26,742,133 and $1,172,244. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 13303 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include three Class C Auto Dealership buildings totaling 112,623 square feet of building area in good condition. The subject was built in 1992, 2012 and 2015 with a land area of 16.62 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and the Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $39,033,676, Sales Comparison Approach of $38,854,935. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $39,033,676. The Just Market Assessed Value is $27,914,377 which is 71.5% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $18,101,825 or $25 PSF for the subject's 724,073 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $15,502,426, plus impact fees of $2,069,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $3,360,425. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $39,033,676. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $231 to $440 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $345 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $381854,935. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $39,033,676. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible 2025-00021 Page 2 of 3 to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided a Cost Approach with a land value conclusion of $6,541,408 or $11.26 PSF of land area and a depreciation cost of $18,941,476 for a value conclusion of $25,482,884 less 15% cost of sale indicating a fair value of $21,660,452. The Petitioner noted dealerships are very unique and only the cost approach is applicable. In cross examination, the PAO noted the cost approach did not provide a land value conclusion and was only a partial analysis. PAO also noted the roof top parking was not considered. The Petitioner questioned the PAO Marshall and Swift Analysis (Core Logic) analysis. The PAO adequately supported the Analysis and its outputs. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior Cost Analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost and Sales analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00021: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00021 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00022 Parcel ID 00155040009 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 13101 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,172,244.00 1,172,244.00 1,172,244.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,172,244.00 1,172,244.00 1,172,244.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,172,244.00 1,172,244.00 1,172,244.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00022 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00022: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $26,742,133 and $1,172,244. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 13303 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include three Class C Auto Dealership buildings totaling 112,623 square feet of building area in good condition. The subject was built in 1992, 2012 and 2015 with a land area of 16.62 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and the Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $39,033,676, Sales Comparison Approach of $38,854,935. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $39,033,676. The Just Market Assessed Value is $27,914,377 which is 71.5% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $18,101,825 or $25 PSF for the subject's 724,073 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $15,502,426, plus impact fees of $2,069,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $3,360,425. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $39,033,676. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $231 to $440 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $345 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $381854,935. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $39,033,676. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible 2025-00022 Page 2 of 3 to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided a Cost Approach with a land value conclusion of $6,541,408 or $11.26 PSF of land area and a depreciation cost of $18,941,476 for a value conclusion of $25,482,884 less 15% cost of sale indicating a fair value of $21,660,452. The Petitioner noted dealerships are very unique and only the cost approach is applicable. In cross examination, the PAO noted the cost approach did not provide a land value conclusion and was only a partial analysis. PAO also noted the roof top parking was not considered. The Petitioner questioned the PAO Marshall and Swift Analysis (Core Logic) analysis. The PAO adequately supported the Analysis and its outputs. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior Cost Analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost and Sales analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00022: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00022 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00024 Parcel ID 00242360003 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 6381 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 12,640,194.00 12,640,194.00 12,640,194.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,640,194.00 12,640,194.00 12,640,194.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,640,194.00 12,640,194.00 12,640,194.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00024 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00024: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $12,640,194. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 6381 Airport Road North, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include two Class C Auto Dealership buildings and one Class S Service Garage totaling 42,625 square feet of building area in average/good condition. The subject was built in 1997 and 1998 with a land area of 12.35 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and the Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $18,604,715, Sales Comparison Approach of $17,476,250. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $18,604,715. The Just Market Assessed Value is $12,640,194 which is 67.9% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $13,987,116 or $26 PSF for the subject's 537,966 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $2,214,443, plus impact fees of $783,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $1,620,156. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $18,604,715. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $231 to $440 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $410 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $17,476,250. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $18,604,715. 2025-00024 Page 2 of 3 The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided a Cost Approach with a land value conclusion of $7,000,350 or $13.78 PSF of land area and a depreciation cost of $3,907,024 for a value conclusion of $10,907,374 less 15% cost of sale indicating a fair value of $9,271,268. The Petitioner noted dealerships are very unique and only the cost approach is applicable. In cross examination, the PAO noted the cost approach did not provide a land value conclusion and was only a partial analysis. The Petitioner questioned the PAO Marshall and Swift Analysis (Core Logic) analysis. The PAO adequately supported the Analysis and its outputs. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior Cost Analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost and Sales analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00024: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00024 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00027 Parcel ID 00256360507 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 3295 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 12,521,567.00 12,521,567.00 12,521,567.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,521,567.00 12,521,567.00 12,521,567.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,521,567.00 12,521,567.00 12,521,567.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00027 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00027: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $12,521,567. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 3295 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a Class C Auto Dealership building totaling 44,104 square feet of building area in good condition. The subject was built in 2018 with a land area of 10.44 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and the Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $18,077,180, Sales Comparison Approach of $17,641,600. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $18,077,180. The Just Market Assessed Value is $12,521,567 which is 69.3% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $8,185,788 or $18 PSF for the subject's 454,766 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $7,511,648, plus impact fees of $810,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $1,569,744. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $18,077,180. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $231 to $440 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $400 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $17164100. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $18,077,180. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible 2025-00027 Page 2 of 3 to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided a Cost Approach with a land value conclusion of $5,341,227 or $11.75 PSF of land area and a depreciation cost of $4,892,397 for a value conclusion of $10,233,624 less 15% cost of sale indicating a fair value of $8,698,580. The Petitioner noted dealerships are very unique and only the cost approach is applicable. In cross examination, the PAO noted the cost approach did not provide a land value conclusion and was only a partial analysis. The Petitioner questioned the PAO Marshall and Swift Analysis (Core Logic) analysis. The PAO adequately supported the Analysis and its outputs. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior Cost Analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost and Sales analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00027: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00027 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00028 Parcel ID 05830290425 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 1080 GOODLETTE-FRANK RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 467,190.00 467,190.00 467,190.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 436,354.00 436,354.00 436,354.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 436,354.00 436,354.00 436,354.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00028 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00028: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Carla Allegro CFE and Chris DelPo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $467,190. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is subject of this petition, is a commercial condominium unit located at 1080 Goodlette Frank Road, Unit B-9, Naples, Florida. Subject condominium includes a condominium built in 1990 and has an adjusted area of 1,611 square feet. The property last sold on June 7, 2018 for $395,000. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach with supporting detail. The Cost Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $562,239 and a value indication by the Income Approach of $563,200. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $467,190 which is 83.0% of the value indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on eleven comparable properties all selling in 2024. The sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $265 PSF to $488 PSF with a median of $349 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $349 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $562,239. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $27 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was 2025-00028 Page 2 of 4 provided at 6.75% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $563,200. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including three comparable sales. The sales dates ranged from October 2023 to June 2024 and indicated an unadjusted sales price per square foot of building area range from $210 PSF to $226 PSF. The Petitioner concluded to a unit value of $234.47 PSF or $377,738, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $321,077. The Petitioner also provided a Proforma Income analysis and an actual income analysis. The Proforma concluded to an annual rent of $23.55 PSF, vacancy of 4.5%, expenses of 5.0% and a cap rate of 9.0% indicating a value of $382,447, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $325,080. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one of the sales was 2024. The PAO further noted that the 2024 sale was a 5th floor unit and considered inferior to the subjects 1 st floor location. The PAO also noted that the lease rates were from older leases not signed in the last 12 months and cap rate support utilized in the Petitioners evidence does not reflect local market data. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. The Petitioner also provided a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Based on the quality of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00028: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property 2025-00028 Page 3 of 4 Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00028 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00029 Parcel ID 11380280005 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property APLES The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAVE representative ES, FLL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 388,800.00 388,800.00 388,800.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 388,800.00 388,800.00 388,800.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 388,800.00 388,800.00 388,800.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00029 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00029: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Carla Allegro CFE and Chris DelPo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $388,800. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is subject of this petition, is a commercial condominium unit located at 700 2nd Avenue, Unit 205, Naples, Florida. Subject condominium includes a condominium built in 1987 and has an adjusted area of 1,620 square feet. The property last sold on June 5, 2019 for $315,000. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach with supporting detail. The Cost Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $565,380 and a value indication by the Income Approach of $566,356. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $388,800 which is 68.8% of the value indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on eleven comparable properties all selling in 2024. The sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $265 PSF to $488 PSF with a median of $349 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $349 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $565,380. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $27 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was 2025-00029 Page 2 of 4 provided at 6.75% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $566,356. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including three comparable sales. The sales dates ranged from October 2023 to June 2024 and indicated an unadjusted sales price per square foot of building area range from $198 PSF to $226 PSF. The Petitioner concluded to a unit value of $212.11 PSF or $343,617, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $292,075. The Petitioner also provided a Proforma Income analysis. The Proforma concluded to an annual rent of $23.55 PSF, vacancy of 4.5%, expenses of 5.0% and a cap rate of 9.0% indicating a value of $384,583, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $326,896. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one of the sales was 2024. The PAO further noted that the 2024 sale was a 5th floor unit and considered inferior to the subjects 1 st floor location. The PAO also noted that the lease rates were from older leases not signed in the last 12 months and cap rate support utilized in the Petitioners evidence does not reflect local market data. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. The Petitioner also provided a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Based on the quality of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00029: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this matter, the Petitioner 2025-00029 Page 3 of 4 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00029 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00030 Parcel ID 17012520008 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 1770 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 25,528,326.00 25,528,326.00 25,528,326.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 23,649,621.00 23,649,621.00 23,649,621.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 23,649,621.00 23,649,621.00 23,649,621.00 *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 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00030 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00030: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Chad Standage, agent for the owners of subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $251528,326. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a canal waterfront, high quality two-story single-family dwelling, with pool and dock, located in the Port Royal subdivision. The base building area is 6,699-sf, the under -air area is 9,245-sf, with an adjusted building size of 10,543- sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 41,817.6-sf. The property was built in 2014, with an effective age of 2014. The property is located at 1770 Galleon Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00030 Page 2 of 5 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. As rebuttal, PAO provided a chart, which graphs property values in three neighborhoods, which include Port Royal, where the subject is located, and Aqualane Shore and Royal Harbor, where some of PET's sales are located. PET did not object to PAO's presentation of this evidence. 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 subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to April 2024. The lots range in size from 26,136-sf to 43,995-sf. The sales range in value from $317.25/sf to $463.68/sf. PAO deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $375.41/sf x 41,817.6-sf = $151698,787. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $463,000 and impact fees are estimated at $35,973; depreciated building cost is estimated at $11,937,606 the land value is estimated at $15,698,787 for a total cost of $28,135,366. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to November 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 7,496-sf to 9,507-sf and adjusted building size of 8,843-sf to 11,625-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 26,136-sf to 41,817.6-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2015 to 2021. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1% to -4%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $2,318.00/sf to $2,960.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $2,685.00/sf and a median of $2,732.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $2,732.00/sf of 2025-00030 Page 3 of 5 building area including land on 10,543-sf or $28,799,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 23-page report, and included a cover page with a photograph of subject, value property and executive summary. PET included location map, aerials and photographs of the subject. PET provided a sales chart, with location map of the sales and included photographs and details of the sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 4 sales that sold from March 2024 to April 2025. The sales range in building size from 7,736-sf to 10,833-sf, the land size ranges from .4 acres to .84 acres, the subject is .96 acres. The land to building ratio ranges from 2.07 to 4.29 with the subject at 3.97. The effective year -built ranges from 2001 to 2010. These properties sold from $11,999,999 to $18,000,000 or $1,420.12/sf to $1,940.89/sf. PET made adjustments for building size, age, land to building ratio, amenities and location. The adjusted sales range in value from $1,464.21 to $2,155.23/sf with an average of $11765.64. PET applied the average $1,765.64/sf to the area of 10,543-sf for a value of $18,615,148, less 15% cost of sales of $2,792,272 indicates a value of $15,822,875. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's sales # 1 is a 2025 sale and occurred after the date of value of 1/l/2025. PAO provided a chart, which graphs property values in three neighborhoods which include Port Royal, where the subject is located and Aqualane Shore and Royal Harbor, the values indicated in Royal Harbor are lower than in Port Royal. PET's Sale # 3 is located in Royal Harbor, an inferior location to the subject; PET's sale # 2 has a smaller lot and building size and is older in age and an inferior building; Sale # 4 is inferior in quality and the lot is smaller than the subject. PAO indicated PAO's sale # 1 is closest to the subject in land and building size, and is newer and slightly better quality due to age, this sale is adjusted at $2,731/sf. As rebuttal, PET indicated PET's sale # 4 is closest in size to the subject and is the best sale to support a lower value for the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach and made appropriate adjustments for the differences in the properties. PET provided 4 improved sales, with one sale being a 2025 sale and one being in an inferior neighborhood. PET made a negative deduction for the building size when a positive adjustment was warranted, this 2025-00030 Page 4 of 5 weakens the approach. 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 2025-00030: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00030 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00031 Parcel ID 17915000007 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property APLE TN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NS representative S, FLL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,810,667.00 3,810,667.00 3,810,667.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,773,681.00 3,773,681.00 3,773,681.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,773,681.00 3,773,681.00 3,773,681.00 *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 11/24/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00031 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00031: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Wayne Tannenbaum, from Pivotal Tax Solutions, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,810,667. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a 3-story, Class C-good quality, office building. The total building area is 16,462-sf, there is about 3,565-sf of covered parking on the first floor, with office space above. PAO indicated there is an apartment on the third floor. The land size is 19,784-sf or .45 acres with a floor area ratio of .83. The property was built in 2002. PAO indicated the subject property is a good quality office building on highway US-41, in a high traffic location with retail and office uses, in close proximity to downtown Naples. The property is located at 633 9th Street N, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO indicated office rents in Collier County are rising and the occupancy is stable (at 92.7% to 95.3%) in contract to the national market and other areas in Florida. There is no indication of oversupply of office space in Naples and with the ageing population in Collier county and high median household income demand for medical and financial office space should remain strong. Sales of office buildings have been scarce in the past year, due in part by high interest rates. PAO indicated operating expenses are on the rise 2025-00031 Page 2 of 7 due primarily to the high cost of insurance. PAO presented a report containing 95 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, confidential rent comparables, market data support and 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 5 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from March 2023 to February 2025. The land sales range in size from 22,500-sf to 152,300-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $133.45/sf to $222.22/sf. The mean of all the sales is $181.74/sf and the median is $195.61/sf. PAO added older sales that sold from August 2021 to December 2021 that range in size from 30,000-sf to 75,135-sf and sold at a mean of $139.18/sf and a median of $120.23/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $150.00/sf x 19,784-sf or $2,967,600. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $2,702,933, impact fees at $159,000, the land value is estimated at $2,967,600, entrepreneurial profit at $283,527 indicates a total cost of $6,113,059. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $ 5,196,100. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from August 2023 to January 2025. The sales range in building size from 7,500-sf to 22,258-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .46 acres to 1.27 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .30 to .46, the subject has a floor area ratio of .83. The buildings were built from 1985 to 2008. The unadjusted sales range from $309.00 to $686.00/sf, with a mean of $459.00/sf and a median of $420.00/sf of building area including land. PAO placed emphasis on Sale # 3 which is closest to the subject, is an older smaller building, the floor area ratio of this sale is .46, the subject is 2025-00031 Page 3 of 7 .83; this property sold for $686.00/sf unadjusted. PAO reconciled a value at $315.00/sf of building area including land on 16,462-sf or $5,185,530. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $4,407,700. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of office buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from Costar, a national real estate market data survey company. The net rents range from $16.00/sf to $56.68/sf with a mean of $28.04/sf and a median of $28.00/sf. PAO estimated a rent of $24.00/sf on 16,462-sf at $395,088.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for office space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 4.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 4.8% to 5.3%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 7% for the subject or $27,656 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $367,432. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income or $29,395. The net operating income is estimated at $338,037. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from office sales throughout Florida, with some sales in Naples and Fort Myers. The sales occurred from January 2024 to January 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.08% to 9.00% with a mean of 6.70% and a median of 6.84%. PAO provided the cap rate for office buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC. The average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 10.00% with an average of 7.78%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 7.00% for the subject. The NOI of $338,037 capitalized at 7.00% indicates a value of $4,829,104. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $4,104,738. PAO's just value is $3,810,667 or $231.00/sf. 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 64-pages which consisted of a cover page with photograph of subject, value and property summary, location map with aerials, 2025-00031 Page 4 of 7 photograph of subject. PET provided the Sales Comparable approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PET provided a Cost Analysis and provided land sales with details of each sale including a location map. PET developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from CoStar, as well as analysis of capitalization rates. PET reconciled the values. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicate the subject has a small land to building ratio -limited land. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from May 2022 to March 2024. The sales range in building size from 6,429-sf to 27,118-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 1.08 acres to 2.85 acres; with a land to building ratio of 2.43 to 19.31, the subject is at 1.2. The buildings were built from 1982 to 2002. PET adjusted for building size and age, the adjusted sales range from $178.88/sf to $217.01/sf, with an average of $198.52/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $198.52/sf of building area including land on 16,462-sf or $3,268,074, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $2,777,863 or $168.74/sf. PET provided the Cost analysis, PET did not provide a separate cost analysis for the building, PET used the cost on the improvements on the Collier County property record card of $1,691,801. PET provided 6 land sales in Collier County. The land sales sold from March 2022 to February 2025. The land size ranges from .28 acres to 4.34 acres. PET adjusted for size. The adjusted sales range from $27.93/sf to $69.33/sf with an average of $49.42/sf, PET estimated a value of $49.42/sf on 19,785-sf or $977,806. Summary of Cost: Building Cost $1,691,801 Land Value $977,806 Total Cost $2,669,607 PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 10 market rents from Costar, in Collier County. The rents range from $11.00 to $15.00/sf triple net. PET estimated a market rent of $18.00/sf on 16,462-sf for a gross income of $296,316. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% for subject or $14,816. The effective gross income is $2811500. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 5% of EGI or $14,075. Net operating income is $267,425. 2025-00031 Page 5 of 7 PET provided cap rates from national survey CoStar in the range of 8.34% to 8.6%. PET estimated a cap rate of 8.25% PET capitalized the NOI of $267,425 at 8.25% for an estimated value of $3,241,517, less 15% COS of $486,228 indicates a value of $2,755,290 or $167.37/sf. PET requested a value of $2,734,000 or $166.08/sf As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's improved sale # 4 and 5 is the same transaction. PAO indicated all of PET's sales are not comparable to the subject. Several sales are located in industrial zones in inferior locations to the subject. PET's sale # 3 is a vacant office building and suffers from deferred maintenance. Sale # 6 is an older sale of a medical office building in an inferior location, closer to the subject; the asking rent in this building is $28.00/sf. PET's land sales are in inferior locations to the subject, mostly southeast of the subject; PET used the building cost from the property record card and did not develop a separate cost analysis. PET's rents are in inferior locations, mostly located in industrial locations; PET's rent comparables are small spaces, two of which are 120-157-sf, these are individual office rentals. PET's rent at $18.00/sf is low. As rebuttal, PET indicated the subject has less land and should be adjusted for the size. PAO included office condominiums as sales, which PET indicated are not comparable. PAO indicated PAO's sale # 3 is closest in location to the subject, PET indicated this building is half the size of the subject. PET indicated PAO did not make adjustments to the sales. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's improved sales and rent comparables are mostly located in industrial parks with no exposure to US-41, a high traffic area with retail and office use. PET did not provide improved sales and comparable rents that are similar to the subject in use, location and condition. PET's cap rate at 8.25% is high for the condition and location of the subject. 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 2025-00031: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00031 Page 6 of 7 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00031 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00033 Parcel ID 34595004040 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 5332 USEPPAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,336,040.00 2,336,040.00 2,336,040.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,141,370.00 2,141,370.00 2,141,370.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,141,370.00 2,141,370.00 2,141,370.00 *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 11/24/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00033 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00033: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Wayne Tannenbaum, from Pivotal Tax Solutions, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,336,040. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a vacant commercial land parcel. The land size is 77,868- sf or 1.79 acres. PAO indicated the subject property is located just west of the intersection of Interstate 75 and Immokalee Road, with an exit off I-75 at Immokalee Road, in a heavy commercial zone. The property is located at 5332 Useppa Way, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, and photographs of the subject. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided land sales, in chart form, with aerial photographs of each sale and a location map of the sales. PAO included the legal description of the subject, and the subject property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. 2025-00033 Page 2 of 4 The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 6 land sales, in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The lots range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf. All comparable sales have a commercial zoning. The unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $50.00/sf x 77,868-sf or $31893,400. 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 29-pages which consisted of a cover page with photograph of subject, value and property summary, location map with aerials, photograph of subject. PET provided the Sales Comparable approach and provided comparable land sales with location map and a detailed description of each sale. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 6 land sales in Collier County. The land sales sold from February 2022 to January 2025. The land size ranges from 3.50 acres to 9.35 acres, subject is 1.79 acres. PET adjusted for size. PET's sales are located close to the subject and most of PET's sales are zoned Agricultural with two sales zoned MPUD and PUD. The adjusted sales range from $5.87/sf to $16.53/sf with an average of $14.27/sf, PET estimated a value of $14.27/sf on 77,868-sf or $1,111,606 less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $944,865 or $12.13/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's sales are mostly zoned agricultural and the subject is zoned Commercial PUD. PAO indicated two of PET's sales, located east of Interstate 75 have been rezoned to residential apartments since the sale. Two sales closest to the subject (zoned Agricultural) sold and have been rezoned for a large apartment complex. PAO indicated PET's sale #5 in 2/22 did not occur. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO has two sales close to the subject that sold in the $38.00 to $40.00/sf range, PAO indicated one of these sales is a rear lot with no frontage on Immokalee road and sold for $38.62/sf and was developed with a hotel. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using commercial zoned land sales near the subject. PET's sales are near the subject, however most were zoned Agricultural at time of sale; PET made no adjustments 2025-00033 Page 3 of 4 for the zoning. PET did not provide land sales similar to the subject in use, zoning and condition. If the subject is valued at $40.00/sf x 77,868-sf = $3,114,720 less 15% COS indicates a value of $2,647,512 which is higher than the just value of $2,336,040. 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 2025-00033: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00033 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00035 Parcel ID 48000001029 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 3838 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34103 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 133,560.00 133,560.00 133,560.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,560.00 133,560.00 133,560.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,560.00 133,560.00 133,560.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision 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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00035 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00035: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Carla Allegro CFE and Chris DelPo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notices have not been revised prior to the hearing at $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is subject of this petition, is a commercial condominium unit located at 3838 Tamiami Trail North, Units 415, 4161 417 and 418, Naples, Florida. Subject condominium includes a condominium built in 1997 and has an adjusted areas of 512, 5321 566 and 555 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach with supporting detail. The Cost Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087 and a value indication by the Income Approach of $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087 which is 74%, 72%, 72% and 72% of the value indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on eleven comparable properties all selling in 2024. The sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $320 PSF to $591 PSF with a median of $352 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $52 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087. 2025-00035 Page 2 of 4 The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $27 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.50% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including three comparable sales. The sales dates ranged from October 2022 to June 2024 and indicated an unadjusted sales price per square foot of building area range from $210 PSF to $226 PSF. The Petitioner concluded to a unit value of $233.12 PSF or $504,714 for all of the units combined, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $504,714. The Petitioner also provided a Proforma Income analysis. The Proforma concluded to an annual rent of $23.55 PSF, vacancy of 4.5%, expenses of 5.0% and a cap rate of 9.0% indicating a value of $513,965, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $436,870. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one of the sales was 2024. The PAO also noted that the lease rates were from older leases not signed in the last 12 months and cap rate support utilized in the Petitioners evidence does not reflect local market data. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. The Petitioner also provided a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Based on the quality of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00035: Florida law allows 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, 2025-00035 Page 3 of 4 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00035 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00036 Parcel ID 48000001061 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 3838 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34103 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 135,660.00 135,660.00 135,660.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 135,660.00 135,660.00 135,660.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 135,660.00 135,660.00 135,660.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00036 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00036: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Carla Allegro CFE and Chris DelPo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notices have not been revised prior to the hearing at $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is subject of this petition, is a commercial condominium unit located at 3838 Tamiami Trail North, Units 415, 4161 417 and 418, Naples, Florida. Subject condominium includes a condominium built in 1997 and has an adjusted areas of 512, 5321 566 and 555 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach with supporting detail. The Cost Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087 and a value indication by the Income Approach of $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087 which is 74%, 72%, 72% and 72% of the value indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on eleven comparable properties all selling in 2024. The sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $320 PSF to $591 PSF with a median of $352 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $52 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087. 2025-00036 Page 2 of 4 The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $27 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.50% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including three comparable sales. The sales dates ranged from October 2022 to June 2024 and indicated an unadjusted sales price per square foot of building area range from $210 PSF to $226 PSF. The Petitioner concluded to a unit value of $233.12 PSF or $504,714 for all of the units combined, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $504,714. The Petitioner also provided a Proforma Income analysis. The Proforma concluded to an annual rent of $23.55 PSF, vacancy of 4.5%, expenses of 5.0% and a cap rate of 9.0% indicating a value of $513,965, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $436,870. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one of the sales was 2024. The PAO also noted that the lease rates were from older leases not signed in the last 12 months and cap rate support utilized in the Petitioners evidence does not reflect local market data. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. The Petitioner also provided a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Based on the quality of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00036: Florida law allows 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, 2025-00036 Page 3 of 4 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00036 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00037 Parcel ID 48000001087 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 3838 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34103 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 144,330.00 144,330.00 144,330.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 144,330.00 144,330.00 144,330.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 144,330.00 144,330.00 144,330.00 *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 (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00037 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00037: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Carla Allegro CFE and Chris DelPo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notices have not been revised prior to the hearing at $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is subject of this petition, is a commercial condominium unit located at 3838 Tamiami Trail North, Units 415, 4161 417 and 418, Naples, Florida. Subject condominium includes a condominium built in 1997 and has an adjusted areas of 512, 5321 566 and 555 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach with supporting detail. The Cost Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087 and a value indication by the Income Approach of $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087 which is 74%, 72%, 72% and 72% of the value indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on eleven comparable properties all selling in 2024. The sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $320 PSF to $591 PSF with a median of $352 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $52 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087. 2025-00037 Page 2 of 4 The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $27 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.50% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including three comparable sales. The sales dates ranged from October 2022 to June 2024 and indicated an unadjusted sales price per square foot of building area range from $210 PSF to $226 PSF. The Petitioner concluded to a unit value of $233.12 PSF or $504,714 for all of the units combined, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $504,714. The Petitioner also provided a Proforma Income analysis. The Proforma concluded to an annual rent of $23.55 PSF, vacancy of 4.5%, expenses of 5.0% and a cap rate of 9.0% indicating a value of $513,965, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $436,870. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one of the sales was 2024. The PAO also noted that the lease rates were from older leases not signed in the last 12 months and cap rate support utilized in the Petitioners evidence does not reflect local market data. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. The Petitioner also provided a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Based on the quality of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00037: Florida law allows 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, 2025-00037 Page 3 of 4 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00037 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00044 Parcel ID 07040000607 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 2975 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 5,295,937.00 5,295,937.00 5,295,937.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,295,937.00 5,295,937.00 5,295,937.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,295,937.00 5,295,937.00 5,295,937.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. There is no good cause request pending and the petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition heard without their attendance. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00044 Page 1 of 2 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00044: Pursuant to FAC 12D-9.021(8), relief should be denied, and this recommendation is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00044 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00045 Parcel ID 07040002003 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 3050 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 6,627,024.00 6,627,024.00 6,627,024.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,627,024.00 6,627,024.00 6,627,024.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,627,024.00 6,627,024.00 6,627,024.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. There is no good cause request pending and the petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition heard without their attendance. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00045 Page 1 of 2 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00045: Pursuant to FAC 12D-9.021(8), relief should be denied, and this recommendation is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00045 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00046 Parcel ID 07040002605 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 3030 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,919,521.00 3,919,521.00 3,919,521.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,919,521.00 3,919,521.00 3,919,521.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,919,521.00 3,919,521.00 3,919,521.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. There is no good cause request pending and the petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition heard without their attendance. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00046 Page 1 of 2 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00046: Pursuant to FAC 12D-9.021(8), relief should be denied, and this recommendation is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00046 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00047 Parcel ID 07040002702 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 2900 HORSESHOE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 7,668,241.00 7,668,241.00 7,668,241.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,668,241.00 7,668,241.00 7,668,241.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,668,241.00 7,668,241.00 7,668,241.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause. There is no good cause request pending and the petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition heard without their attendance. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00047 Page 1 of 2 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00047: Pursuant to FAC 12D-9.021(8), relief should be denied, and this recommendation is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00047 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00059 Parcel ID 29505008902 Petitioner name CURRAN, JOE LINDA Property 6900 MILL RUNCIR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,090,303.00 1,090,303.00 1,090,303.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,090,303.00 1,090,303.00 1,090,303.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,090,303.00 1,090,303.00 1,090,303.00 *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 10/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00059 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00059: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. On the telephone, the Petitioners (PET) were Joe and Linda Curran, owners of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,090,303. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling. The base building area is 2,143-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,598-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and 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 13,883-sf. The property was built in 1996, with an effective age of 1996. The property is located at 6900 Mill Run Circle, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 2025-00059 Page 2 of 5 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 31 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for history for the subject and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 5 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to September 2024. The lots range in size from 11,324-sf to 14,740-sf. The sales range in value from $63.57/sf to $91.35/sf. PAO adjusted the land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and for cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $76.00/sf x 13,883-sf = $110601682. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $22,500; impact fees are estimated at $0.00; depreciated building cost is estimated at $295,501; the land value is estimated at $1,060,682 for a total cost of $1,378,683. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to September 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 2,646-sf to 3,323-sf and adjusted building size of 3,102-sf to 3,814-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 11,324-sf to 14,709-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 1990 to 2005. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 1-5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $456.00 to $576.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $505.00/sf and a median of $505.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $505.00/sf of building area including land on 2,598-sf or $1,312,000 rounded. PAO indicated the subject was listed for sale for a 3-month period in 2025 for $1,295,000. 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. 2025-00059 Page 3 of 5 PET's evidence consisted of a 6-page report, consisting of a cover letter and comparative sales, with some photographs of the sales. PET provided the same information and sales, the day of the hearing; and provided clarification on the reduction of value due to the subject's proximity to a cell tower. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the same sales -under a separate email to the Value Adjustment Board and not to the property Appraiser, the day of the hearing; this email provided clarification on the reduction of value due to the subject and proximity to a cell tower. PAO accepted the new evidence after review. PET provided information on the reduction in value in subject neighborhood by providing eight comparable sales and one listing. All sales occurred in 2025, with only one sale in the first quarter of 2025 that sold for $651.45/sf. The sales provided by PET range from $438.43/sf to $651.45/sf with no adjustments made for differences in size and features. PET indicated the subject is close to a cell tower; and interested buyers of the subject indicated concern of the property's proximity to the cell tower, which PET indicated erodes the value of the subject. PET did not provide sales in the year 2024. As rebuttal, PAO indicated all of PET's sales occurred in 2025 after the date of value of l/l/2025 and PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability and values have declined in 2025, the 2025 sales are not relevant for the current value date of 1/l/2025 and is a different market (slightly lower in value) than in 2024. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. PET provided sales that occurred in 2025, after the valuation date of 1/l/2025. 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 2025-00059: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00059 Page 4 of 5 Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00059 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00084 Parcel ID 33155000029 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 8831 FOUNDERS SQUARE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34120 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 10,717,405.00 10,717,405.00 10,717,405.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,717,405.00 10,717,405.00 10,717,405.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,717,405.00 10,717,405.00 10,717,405.00 *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 11/18/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/20/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00084 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00084: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Ms. Clara Gerdes, from Flanagan Bilton LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $101717,405. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a 2-story, Class C-good medical office building. The total building area is 34,040-sf. The land size is 119,560-sf or 2.74 acres. The property was built in 2021. The property was reported at 100% occupancy as of January 1, 2025. The property is subject to a ground lease at undisclosed terms, PAO and PET provided a Fee Simple value. The property is located at 8831 Founders Square Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO indicated office rents in Collier County are rising and the occupancy is stable (at 92.7% to 95.3%) in contract to the national market and other areas in Florida. There is no indication of oversupply of office space in Naples and with the ageing population in Collier county and high median household income demand for medical and financial office space should remain strong. Sales of office buildings have been scarce in the past year, due in part by high interest rates. PAO indicated operating expenses are on the rise due primarily to the high cost of insurance. 2025-00084 Page 2 of 6 PAO presented a report containing 101 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description with plat, sale history comments, ground lease assumption excerpt, impact fee calculator, confidential rent comparables, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $40.00/sf x 119,560-sf or $4,782,400. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, and profit is estimated at $7,810,248, impact fees at $1,152,000, the land value is estimated at $4,782,400, entrepreneurial profit at $1,259,265, plus lease -up of $436,869 indicates a total cost of $15,440,782. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $13,124,664. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 sales of properties in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from August 2023 to September 2024. The sales range in building size from 14,300-sf to 76,844-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 1.27 acres to 6.79 acres; with a land to building ratio ranging from 20% to 36%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 28%. The buildings were built from 1981 to 2008. The unadjusted sales range from $288.00 to $465.00/sf, with a mean of $373.00/sf and a median of $379.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $375.00/sf of building area including land of 34,040-sf or $12,765,000. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $10,850,250. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in 2025-00084 Page 3 of 6 Naples, of office buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from Costar, a national real estate market data survey company. The net rents range from $26.91/sf to $45.65/sf with a mean of $35.86/sf and a median of $35.60/sf. PAO estimated a rent of $30.00/sf on 34,040-sf at $1,021,200.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for office space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 4.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 4.8% to 5.3%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 7% for the subject or $71,484 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $949,716. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income or $75,977. The net operating income is estimated at $873,739. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from office sales throughout Florida, with some sales in Naples and Fort Myers. The sales occurred from January 2024 to January 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.08% to 9.00% with a mean of 6.70% and a median of 6.84%. PAO provided the cap rate for office buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC. The average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 10.00% with an average of 7.78%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.75%. The NOI of $873,739 capitalized at 6.75% indicates a value of $12,944,277. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $11,002,635. PAO's just value $10,717,405 or $314.85/sf. 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 84-pages which consisted of a cover page, property description, property record card, negative factors(such as high interest rates and insurance cost affecting value). PET provided the Income Approach, with an income proforma and market data for rents, vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PET provided form DR-493, a summary of FS 193.011, advisory memorandum on the mathematically correct methods for deducting costs of sale in the Income Capitalization Approach, a letter dated March 26, 2013 from Phipps & Howell attorneys at law to John Wood, Florida house of representatives. 2025-00084 Page 4 of 6 PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided negative factors indicating insurance in Florida represents 14.19% of the operating expenses, cap rates are going up and interest rates are high for financing. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 28 market rents from Costar, in Collier and Lee Counties. The rents range from $15.00 to $27.00/sf triple net. Rents from National market surveys such as JLL, Collier, CBRE and TW range from $24.00 to 27.00/sf for medical office space. PET estimated a market rent of $23.765/sf on 34,040-sf for a gross income of $808,961. PET provided vacancy charts that indicate a vacancy of 8.15% to 8.90%. CoStar indicates a vacancy for year end 2024 of 7.6% to 9.9%. PET estimated a vacancy of 8% for subject or $64,717. The effective gross income is $744,244. PET provided replacement reserves data from PWC Investor survey which indicates reserves in the range of $0.39/sf for medical office buildings. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI or $74,424 and added $0.39/sf reserves or $13,276. Net operating income is $656,544. PET provided cap rates from national surveys such as Costar in the range of 8.5% to 8.9%, Cushman & Wakefield and CRBE, IQ 2025 indicate cap rates of 6.9% to 7.1 %, PWC net lease average cap rates of 7.2% to 7.54%, 1st Q 2025. PET estimated a cap rate of 7.0% PET capitalized the NOI of $656,544 at 7.00% for an estimated value of $9,379,197, less 15% COS indicates a value of $8,441,277 or $247.98/sf. As rebuttal, PAO did a side by side analysis of PAO and PET's income approach, the main difference is in the market rent, PAO has $30.00/sf and PET had $23.765/sf, PAO indicated that some of PET's rent comparables are located in inferior areas, the subject is located at a heavy traffic intersection in a mixed -use development of retail and office use. PAO indicated PET's operating expenses are high at 10% of EGI plus the reserves indicates expenses at 11.8% of EGI, which is high for a triple net lease. PET's cap rate at 7% is considered high. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's improved sales 3,5 and 6 would require a reduction, also, PAO did not deduct 15% for cost of sales. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's rent is low at $23.765/sf for a medical office building in a good location, PET used rents from inferior locations as comparables. PET's operating expenses are high for a triple net lease. PET's value is understated. 2025-00084 Page 5 of 6 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 2025-00084: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00084 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00085 Parcel ID 52505031302 Petitioner name BURKHART, RICHARD, BARBARA ANN BU Property 5154 ANDROSDR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34113 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,609,891.00 1,577,329.00 1,577,329.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,609,891.00 1,577,329.00 1,577,329.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,609,891.00 1,577,329.00 1,577,329.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/27/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/28/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00085 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00085: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Jenny Blaje Plock, CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the while the Petitioners Richard and Barbara Ann Burkhart were present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $1,577,329. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 5154 Andros Dr, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include an excellent quality one-story single-family residence with a pool area. The subject was built in 2015 and has a base area of 2,930 square feet and 3,392 adjusted square feet on a 10,019 square foot lot. The property last sold on July 26, 2022 for $2,150,000. The property was listed for sale at $2,400,000 on 9/30/2024. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $1,694,911 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,643,494 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,577,329. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the extraction method of the improved sales. The sales indicated a land value of $842,372 or $84.08 PSF for the subject's 10,019 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $795,863 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $561676. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $11694,911. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $459 PSF to $505 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $485 per square foot 2025-00085 Page 2 of 3 which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,643,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided information on three improved sales that transpired from March of 2025 to April of 2025. The Petitioner indicated an assessed value of $1,543,028 considering the assessments of the sales provided. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that one of the comparable sales considered by the Petitioner was a disqualified sale and the other two sales were utilized by the Property Appraiser in there analysis. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00085: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00085 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00087 Parcel ID 48000001045 Petitioner name PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS Property 3838 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34103 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 141,525.00 141,525.00 141,525.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 141,525.00 141,525.00 141,525.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 141,525.00 141,525.00 141,525.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/22/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00087 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00087: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Carla Allegro CFE and Chris DelPo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner, was represented by Wayne Tennebaum of Pivotal Tax Solutions, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notices have not been revised prior to the hearing at $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is subject of this petition, is a commercial condominium unit located at 3838 Tamiami Trail North, Units 415, 4161 417 and 418, Naples, Florida. Subject condominium includes a condominium built in 1997 and has an adjusted areas of 512, 5321 566 and 555 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach with supporting detail. The Cost Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087 and a value indication by the Income Approach of $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $133,560 for 2025-00035, $135,660 for 2025-00036, $144,330 for 2025-00037 and $141,525 for 2025-00087 which is 74%, 72%, 72% and 72% of the value indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on eleven comparable properties all selling in 2024. The sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $320 PSF to $591 PSF with a median of $352 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $52 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $180,224 for 2025-00035, $187,264 for 2025-00036, $199,232 for 2025-00037 and $195,360 for 2025-00087. 2025-00087 Page 2 of 4 The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $27 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.50% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $191,938 for 2025-00035, $199,446 for 2025-00036, $197,881 for 2025-00037 and $197,881 for 2025-00087. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including three comparable sales. The sales dates ranged from October 2022 to June 2024 and indicated an unadjusted sales price per square foot of building area range from $210 PSF to $226 PSF. The Petitioner concluded to a unit value of $233.12 PSF or $504,714 for all of the units combined, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $504,714. The Petitioner also provided a Proforma Income analysis. The Proforma concluded to an annual rent of $23.55 PSF, vacancy of 4.5%, expenses of 5.0% and a cap rate of 9.0% indicating a value of $513,965, less 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $436,870. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one of the sales was 2024. The PAO also noted that the lease rates were from older leases not signed in the last 12 months and cap rate support utilized in the Petitioners evidence does not reflect local market data. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. The Petitioner also provided a Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Based on the quality of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00087: Florida law allows 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, 2025-00087 Page 3 of 4 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00087 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00091 Parcel ID 62642200002 Petitioner name TINEL, ULKU RIMMA R Property 609 The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record [:1APLESESFL taxpayer's address N, FL34108 E N representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,136,672.00 1,136,672.00 1,136,672.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,136,395.00 1,136,395.00 1,136,395.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,136,395.00 1,136,395.00 1,136,395.00 *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 10/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/21/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00091 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00091: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Rumma R. Tinel, owner of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,13 6,672. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling. The base building area is 2,422-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,862-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .17 acres or 7,279-sf. The property was built in 2022, with an effective age of 2022. The property is located at 609 95th Avenue N. Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. 2025-00091 Page 2 of 4 PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for history for the subject and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 3 vacant land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to August 2024. The lots range in size from 6,750-sf to 12,150-sf. The sales range in value from $59.44/sf to $77.97/sf. PAO adjusted the land sales for cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $67.00/sf x 7,279-sf = $485,073. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $42,000; impact fees are estimated at $35,090; depreciated building cost is estimated at $663,537; the land value is estimated at $485,073 for a total cost of $1,225,700. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 3 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2024 to August 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,795-sf to 2,022-sf and adjusted building size of 2,174-sf to 2,334-sf, the land size for these sales are all 6,750-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2010 to 2023. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject time, with a downward adjustment of 24%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $454.00 to $498/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $472.00/ sf and a median of $464.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $464.00/sf of building area including land on 2,862-sf or $1,328,000 rounded. 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 consisted of 1-page indicating that real estate taxes on his property are higher than neighboring properties. 2025-00091 Page 3 of 4 PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject real estate taxes are higher than neighboring properties. PET after PAO's presentation of evidence indicated he did not contest the value arrived at by PAO, PET requested a reduction in real estate taxes. Special Magistrate (SM) indicated the value adjustment board is concerned with the current market value of the property and that real estate taxes are not determined nor can the real estate taxes by adjusted by the Value Adjustment Board. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed equal emphasis on the Cost and Sales Approach as the subject is relatively new construction, having been built in 2022. PET did not provide evidence as to the value of the property and PET concurred with PAO's 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 2025-00091: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00091 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00092 Parcel ID 19135001402 Petitioner name COJANU, MARIUS COSTIN, IRINA MIHAEL Property 5128 SEAHORSEAVE The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34103 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,810,324.00 2,668,074.00 2,668,074.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,585,504.00 1,585,504.00 1,585,504.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,585,504.00 1,585,504.00 1,585,504.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/28/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/29/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00092 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00092: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Jenny Blaje Plock, CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the while the Petitioner Marius Costin Cojanu was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $2,668,074. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 5128 Seahorse Ave, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a good quality one-story single-family residence with a screen enclosure. The subject was built in 1998 and has a base area of 2,616 square feet and 3,200 adjusted square feet on a 15,751 square foot lot. The property is not listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $2,946,929 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $218691610 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $2,668,074. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the extraction method of the improved sales. The sales indicated a land value of $2,501,248 or $158.80 PSF for the subject's 15,751 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $415,681 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at WOO. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $21946,929. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on three comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $884 PSF to $921 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $897 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $2,870,000. 2025-00092 Page 2 of 3 The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided information on land value disparity, Improvement overvaluation and nonuniformity. The Petitioner compared the subject property to a nearby property 5172 Seahorse Avenue and how both properties were similar and assessed for different land values per square foot. However, in cross examination the Property Appraiser noted the Petitioner utilized an incorrect land size for 5172 Seahorse Avenue and that both properties were assessed at the same land unit value. Next the Petitioner compared the assessed improvement value of the subject property to 5172 Seahorse Avenue indicating the subject is 30% smaller and should be assessed at 70% of the comparable property. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted the Petitioner utilized incorrect building sizes for both the subject property and the comparable. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00092: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00092 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00100 Parcel ID 00283400003 Petitioner name MATEESCU, ADRIAN Property 6677 HUNTERS RD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,766,200.00 4,766,200.00 4,766,200.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,766,200.00 4,766,200.00 4,766,200.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,715,478.00 4,715,478.00 4,715,478.00 *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 10/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00100 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00100: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. On the telephone, the Petitioners (PET) were Adrien Mateescu, owner of the property and Paola Rosalis, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $4,766,200. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a high value one-story single-family dwelling, with a two- story guest house. The base building area is 4,715-sf with an adjusted building size of 5,962-sf, the guest house has a base area of 1,796-sf and an adjusted size of 2,840-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 2.5 acres. The property was built in 2023, with an effective age of 2023. PAO indicated the property was listed from March 2024 to July 2025 for $9,500,000 and did not sell. The property is located at 6677 Hunters Road, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums 2025-00100 Page 2 of 5 decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for the history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, vacant land analysis in neighborhood from 2022-2025, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from June 2023 to March 2025. The lots range in size from 2.27 acres to 2.50 acres. The sales range in value from $329,348/acre to $906,700/ acre. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $598,279.80/acre x 2.50 acres = $1,4951700. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $225,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $3,703,700 the land value is estimated at $1,495,700 for a total cost of $5,424,400. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from June 2023 to March 2025. The sales range in building size (under air) from 2,490-sf to 6,890-sf and adjusted building size of 2,997-sf to 7,151-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 2.25 to 2.5 acres. The buildings have an effective age from 2,000 to 2024. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 0-5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $763.00 to $1,001.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $877.00/sf and a median of $872.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $872.00/sf of building area including land on 5,962-sf or $5,199,000 rounded. 2025-00100 Page 3 of 5 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 consisted of a 12-page report, consisting of comparative sales. PET included the Collier County Property Appraiser Summary and detail sheet for properties similar in size to the subject which have lower just values and real estate taxes. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 4 sales that sold from August 2024 to April 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,490-sf to 4,562-sf, PET did not provide a land size. These sales sold in the range from $715,000 to $3,250,000. PET provided the assessed values of neighboring properties to the assessment of the subject and not market value. As rebuttal, PAO indicated one of PET's sales is a condominium that sold for $715,000 and is not comparable to the subject, the remaining sales are smaller than the subject and no adjustments were made. PET compared the assessed value and real estate taxes of neighboring properties and not the market value of these properties. PAO indicated the subject is on the tax role for the first time this year, PAO noted that PAO's sale # 1 sold January 2025 for an adjusted price of $1001.00/sf, this property is larger in building size to the subject and is most comparable in age and land size to the subject; the subject is being valued at $872.00/sf Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. PET provided information on four sales, smaller in size to the subject (with no adjustments for differences), and provided the assessment on neighboring properties; the assessment of neighboring properties and real estate taxes varies greatly depending on exemptions applied. PET's analysis of market 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 2025-00100: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00100 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00100 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00101 Parcel ID 56933880008 Petitioner name JARO E BIJAK LIVING TRUST, VLADISLAV Property 1170 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 917,815.00 917,815.00 917,815.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 917,815.00 917,815.00 917,815.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 917,815.00 917,815.00 917,815.00 *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 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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00101 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00101: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Ms. Maryanne Greger. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $917,815. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00 ] 0 ] Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00102 Parcel ID 57858240007 Petitioner name 539 SEAGRAPE LLC Property 539 SEAGRAPEDR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,532,936.00 1,532,936.00 1,532,936.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 958,959.00 958,959.00 958,959.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 958,959.00 958,959.00 958,959.00 *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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00102 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00102: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Ms. Maryanne Greger. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $1,532,936. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00 ] 02 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00111 Parcel ID 00198560009 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 2115 MALIBU LAKE CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34119 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 73,382,383.00 73,382,383.00 73,382,383.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 66,280,601.00 66,280,601.00 66,280,601.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 66,280,601.00 66,280,601.00 66,280,601.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 12/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/19/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-001 l l Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00111: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Steve Selejan and Mr. Ryan Malek, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $731382,383. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a Class C- good- multi -family apartment complex containing 20-3 story buildings, with an under -air area of 392,895-sf, a 4,455-sf clubhouse with pool and 14,950-sf garage/storage. There are 356 units, with a mix of 118-1-bedroom units(759-sf), 152-2-bedroom units(1,098-sf), 74-3-bedroom units (1,353-sf) and 12-4-bedroom units (1,584-sf). The average of all units is 1,055-s£ The land size is 2,111,789-sf or 48.48 acres. The buildings were built in 2002-2003. The property is located at 2115 Malibu Lake Circle, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 144 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 buildings, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO provided a description of the site and improvements and an Apartment market analysis in Collier County as well as the highest and best use of the property. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with 2025-001 l l Page 2 of 7 location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided comparable apartment rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, impact fees calculation, support for capitalization rates (cap rate), 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 5 multi -family land sales, and a cost summary with depreciated cost estimate for the building. The land sales are located in Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2022 to December 2024; these sales range in land size from 379,843-sf to 1,433,137-sf, the sale prices range from $12.81 to $28.87/sf. The mean is $20.42/sf and the median is $20.92/sf. PAO included two sales that sold in September 2025 in the range of $15.11 to $25.41 for land sizes that range from 8.72 acres to 23.97 acres; PAO included these sales for trending purposes. PAO reconciled a value at $18.00/sf x 2,111,789-sf or $38,012,198. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $40,074,094, plus impact fees estimated at $3,881,000, plus the land value estimated at $33,788,621, plus entrepreneurial incentive at $7,386,271, for a total cost of $85,129,986, plus lease -up of $2,973,404, less tangible personal property (TPP) of $643,477 indicating an As -Is Fee Simple Market Value of $87,459,913. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $74,340,926. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 10 sales of apartment complexes in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from January 2023 to November 2024. The sales range in building size from 59,616-sf to 523,090-sf, with units ranging from 846-sf to 1,157-sf with a mean of 987-sf and a median of 966-sf. The comparable sales contain units in the range of 48 units to 400 units. The land size for the sales ranges from 2.51 acres to 29.74 acres. The buildings were built from 1988 to 2023. The sales range from $192,568 to $471,250/unit with a mean of $288,306 and a median of $270,310. PAO included three sales from 3/25 to 10/25-(out of the date of value of 1/l/25) for trending purposes. These sales sold from $175,000 to $204,327/unit with an average unit size from 547-sf to 1,134-sf. PAO estimated a value for the subject at $250,000 x 356 units = $881356,523, (SM deducted for cost of sales) less 15% COS of sales for a preliminary value of $75,103,044; less tangible personal property of $643,477 indicated a value of $74,459,567. 2025-001 l l Page 3 of 7 PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided 32 market rents for apartment buildings in Collier County. The apartment buildings range in size from 53 units to 556 units and the average unit size ranges from 462-sf to 1,447-sf with a mean of 972-sf and a median of 970-sf, average effective rents range from $1,148 to $2,596/unit/month or $1.30/sf/month to $3.02/sf/month with a mean of $2.13/sf/month ($2,020/unit)and a median of $2.13/sf/month ($2,046/unit/month). PAO used an average rent of $2,216/unit/month or $2. 1 0/sf/month for the 356 units, with an average area of 1,055-sf. The potential gross annual (PGI) is $9,464,616. PAO added other income of 5% of gross income or $473,231. The potential gross income from all sources is estimated at $9,937,847. PAO provided vacancy support for multi -family properties from Costar. Three year average vacancy is 10.3% and the average for 2024 was 12.7%, vacancy at the subject in December 2024 was 7.4%. PAO estimated a vacancy and collection loss of 12% or $111921542. The Effective Gross Income (EGI) is estimated at $8,745,305. PAO provided support for operating expenses from National Apartment Association 2021 survey indicating operating expenses in the range of 34% to 40%, not including real estate taxes. PAO estimated an expense ratio of 32% of EGI or $2,798,498. The net operating income (NOI) is $5,946,808. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from sales of apartment buildings in Florida that sold from January 2024 to May 2025. The cap rates range from 4.24% to 8.99% with a mean of 5.79% and a median of 5.97%. PAO provided cap rates, for multi- family properties in SW Florida, from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC for the 4th Quarter 2024. The average cap rates range from 5.16% to 6.8% with an average of 5.83%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 5.75%, plus the millage rate of 0.950580 for a total cap rate of 6.700580% The NOI of $5,946,808 capitalized at 6.700580% indicates value of $88,750,638, (SM deducted for cost of sales) less 15% for a preliminary value of $74,891,087; less tangible personal property of $643,477 indicated a value of $74,247,610. 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 95-page report. The report consists a cover letter, table of contents, property summary and opinion of value, property record card, PET provided negative 2025-001 l l Page 4 of 7 factors of operating apartment buildings. PET provided the Income Proforma based on market rents. PET provided rental comparables, with photographs and location, vacancy and operating expense analysis and support for the capitalization rate. PET provided information on the 1 st and 8th criterion. Florida DR-493 cost of sale and Florida DOR advisory memorandum. PET developed the Income Approach. The Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach were not developed. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated, in the negative factors section of the report that the cost of operating an apartment complex has increased, the cost of insurance in Florida is higher than other states, real estate taxes are increasing as well as maintenance and administrative costs. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 14 rental comparables in Naples. The rents range from $1,646/unit to $2,202/unit. PET estimated a rent of $2,100/unit on 356 units for an annual income of $8,971,200 other income at 5% of gross income is $448,560. The potential gross income is $9,419,760. PET provided support for a vacancy rate from national surveys such as Costar, Lee & Associates and Cushman & Wakefield. The vacancies for the 4Q 2024 and 1 st Q 2025 range from 9% to 14.6% with an average of 12.03%. PET estimated a vacancy of 12% or $941,976. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $8,477,784. PET provided support for operating expense ratios from national surveys Lobby CRE and Price Waterhouse (PWC) in the range of 39.68% to 45.83% of effective gross income. PET estimated the operating expenses at 40% of EGI or $3,391,114 and reserves and replacement at $320/unit or $113,920 for a total expense of 41.3% of EGI. The NOI is estimated at $4,972,750. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, such as Costar, ERC, IRR-Viewpoint and Realty Rates for the 4th Q 2024 and 1 st Q 2025. The cap rates range from 5.16% to 8.71% , with an average of 6.55%. PET used a cap rate of 5.25% and added a millage rate of 0.81345% for a total cap rate of 6.06345%. The NOI of $4,972,750 capitalized at 6.06345% indicates a value of $82,011,898, less personal property of $686,599 less cost of sales at 15% of $12,197,295 indicates a value of $69,118,004. PET provided a uniformity analysis by comparing the assessment of 5apartment developments in Naples. The comparables range from 120 to 303 units were built from 1991 to 2003 and are assessed at an average of $133,447/unit. PET applied $133,447 x 360 units=$48,050,982. 2025-001 l l Page 5 of 7 PET's reconciled value is $69,118,100. As rebuttal, PAO indicated there has been a decline in asking rents as the vacancy has gone up due to new units being built. PAO indicated the main difference in value between PAO and PET is the operating expenses. As rebuttal PET indicated PAO's operating expense information is dated, PAO's national survey information is as of 2021 and 2022. PET indicated PAO's mean and median rents in their rental survey range from $2020 to $2,046/unit and PAO used $2,216 in their analysis. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value via the Cost Approach, Income Approach and Sales Comparison Approach with emphasis on the Income Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. PET provided the Income Approach. PAO's expense estimate is understated. SM has revised the Income Approach and used PAO's rent at $2,200/unit/month, other income at 5% of the gross at $469,920, the total income is $9,868,320, less vacancy of 12% or $1,184,198 indicates an EGI of $8,684,122. SM has estimated operating expenses, not including real estate taxes at 37% of EGI which is the mid -point between PAO and PET's estimate at $3,213,125. The NOI is $5,470,997. SM used PET's cap rate of 5.25% and added a millage of 0.0095058% (from PAO) for a total cap rate of 6.201%. The indicated value is $88,806,572 less 15% cost of sales of $13,320,986 indicates a value of $74,485,586, less tangible property of $643,477 indicates a value of $74,842,109, which is more than the just value of $7313821383. 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 2025-00111: 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. 2025-001 l l Page 6 of 7 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). Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2025-001 l l Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00112 Parcel ID 00282520007 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 3320 BERMUDA ISLECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 65,701,933.00 65,701,933.00 63,113,270.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 63,168,556.00 63,168,556.00 63,113,270.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 63,168,556.00 63,168,556.00 63,113,270.00 *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 12/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/19/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-001 l 2 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00112: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Steve Selejan and Mr. Ryan Malek, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $651701,933. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a Class C- good multi -family apartment complex containing 12-3 story buildings, with a gross area of 641,470-sf. The apartments have an area of 470,004-sf (air conditioned), the clubhouse is 7,340-sf. There are 360 units, with a mix of 144-1-bedroom units(764-sf), 144-2-bedroom units(1,142-sf) and 73-3- bedroom units (1,417-sf). The average of all units is 1,046-sf. The land size is 1,013,206- sf or 23.26 acres. The buildings were built in 1998-1999. The property is located at 3320 Bermuda Isle Circle, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 120 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 buildings, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO provided a description of the site and improvements and an Apartment market analysis in Collier County as well as the highest and best use of the property. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with 2025-001 l 2 Page 2 of 7 location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided comparable apartment rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, impact fees calculation, support for capitalization rates (cap rate), 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 5 multi -family land sales, and a cost summary with depreciated cost estimate for the building. The land sales are located in Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2022 to December 2024; these sales range in land size from 379,843-sf to 1,433,137-sf, the sale prices range from $12.81 to $28.87/sf. The mean is $20.42/sf and the median is $20.92/sf. PAO included two sales that sold in September 2025 in the range of $15.11 to $25.41 for land sizes that range from 8.72 acres to 23.97 acres; PAO included these sales for trending purposes. PAO reconciled a value at $23.00/sf x 1,013,206-sf or $23,303,729. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $49,095,388, plus impact fees estimated at $3,924,000, plus the land value estimated at $23,303,729, plus entrepreneurial incentive at $7,239,912, for a total cost of $83,563,029, plus lease -up of $2,839,202, less tangible personal property (TPP) of $694,035 indicating an As -Is Fee Simple Market Value of $85,708,196. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $72,851,966. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 10 sales of apartment complexes in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from January 2023 to November 2024. The sales range in building size from 59,616-sf to 523,090-sf, with units ranging from 846-sf to 1,157-sf with a mean of 987-sf and a median of 966-sf. The comparable sales contain units in the range of 48 units to 400 units. The land size for the sales ranges from 2.51 acres to 29.74 acres. The buildings were built from 1988 to 2023. The sales range from $192,568 to $471,250/unit with a mean of $288,306 and a median of $270,310. PAO included three sales from 3/25 to 10/25-(out of the date of value of 1/l/25) for trending purposes. These sales sold from $175,000 to $204,327/unit with an average unit size from 547-sf to 1,134-sf. PAO estimated a value for the subject at $235,000 x 360 units = $84160000, (SM deducted for cost of sales) less 15% COS of sales for a preliminary value of $71,910,000; less tangible personal property of $694,035 indicated a value of $71,215,965. 2025-001 l 2 Page 3 of 7 PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided 32 market rents for apartment buildings in Collier County. The apartment buildings range in size from 53 units to 556 units and the average unit size ranges from 462-sf to 1,447-sf with a mean of 972-sf and a median of 970-sf, average effective rents range from $1,148 to $2,596/unit/month or $1.30/sf/month to $3.02/sf/month with a mean of $2.13/sf/month ($2,020/unit)and a median of $2.13/sf/month ($2,046/unit/month). PAO used an average rent of $2,092/unit/month or $2.00/sf/month for the 360 units, with an average area of 1,046-sf. The potential gross annual (PGI) is $9,037,440. PAO added other income of 5% of gross income or $451,872. The potential gross income from all sources is estimated at $9,489,312. PAO provided vacancy support for multi -family properties from Costar. Three year average vacancy is 10.3% and the average for 2024 was 12.7%, vacancy at the subject in December 2024 was 7.4%. PAO estimated a vacancy and collection loss of 12% or $11138,717. The Effective Gross Income (EGI) is estimated at $8,350,595. PAO provided support for operating expenses from National Apartment Association 2021 survey indicating operating expenses in the range of 34% to 40%, not including real estate taxes. PAO estimated an expense ratio of 32% of EGI or $2,672,190. The net operating income (NOI) is $5,678,404. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from sales of apartment buildings in Florida that sold from January 2024 to May 2025. The cap rates range from 4.24% to 8.99% with a mean of 5.79% and a median of 5.97%. PAO provided cap rates, for multi- family properties in SW Florida, from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC for the 4th Quarter 2024. The average cap rates range from 5.16% to 6.8% with an average of 5.83%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 5.75%, plus the millage rate of 0.950580 for a total cap rate of 6.700580% The NOI of $5,678,404 capitalized at 6.700580% indicates value of $84,744,967, (SM deducted for cost of sales) less 15% for a preliminary value of $72,033,222; less tangible personal property of $694,035 indicated a value of $71,339,187. 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 96-page report. The report consists a cover letter, table of contents, property summary and opinion of value, property record card, PET provided negative 2025-001 l 2 Page 4 of 7 factors of operating apartment buildings. PET provided the Income Proforma based on market rents. PET provided rental comparables, with photographs and location, vacancy and operating expense analysis and support for the capitalization rate. PET provided a uniformity analysis. PET provided information on the 1 st and 8th criterion. Florida DR-493 cost of sale and Florida DOR advisory memorandum. PET developed the Income Approach. The Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach were not developed. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated, in the negative factors section of the report that the cost of operating an apartment complex has increased, the cost of insurance in Florida is higher than other states, real estate taxes are increasing as well as maintenance and administrative costs. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 14 rental comparables in Naples. The rents range from $1,646/unit to $2,202/unit. PET estimated a rent of $2,000/unit on 360 units for an annual income of $8,640,000 other income at 5% of gross income is $216,000. The potential gross income is $8,856,000. PET provided support for a vacancy rate from national surveys such as Costar, Lee & Associates and Cushman & Wakefield. The vacancies for the 4Q 2024 and 1 st Q 2025 range from 9% to 14.6% with an average of 12.03%. PET estimated a vacancy of 12% or $8851000. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $7,970,400. PET provided support for operating expense ratios from national surveys Lobby CRE and Price Waterhouse (PWC) in the range of 39.68% to 45.83% of effective gross income. PET estimated the operating expenses at 40% of EGI or $3,188,160 and reserves and replacement at $320/unit or $115,200 for a total expense of 41.3% of EGI. The NOI is estimated at $4,667,040. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, such as CoStar, ERC, IRR-Viewpoint and Realty Rates for the 4th Q 2024 and 1 st Q 2025. The cap rates range from 5.16% to 8.71% , with an average of 6.55%. PET used a cap rate of 6.00% and added a millage rate of 0.81345% for a total cap rate of 6.81345%. The NOI of $4,667,040 capitalized at 6.81345% indicates a value of $68,497,457, less personal property of $694,035 less cost of sales at 15% of $10,170,513 indicates a value of $57,633,000 rounded. PET provided a uniformity analysis by comparing the assessment of 5 apartment developments in Naples. The comparables range from 120 to 303 units were built from 1991 to 2003 and are assessed at an average of $133,447/unit. PET applied $133,447 x 360 units=$48,040,982. 2025-001 l 2 Page 5 of 7 PET's reconciled value is $52,837,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated there has been a decline in asking rents as the vacancy has gone up due to new units being built. PAO indicated the main difference in value between PAO and PET is the operating expenses. As rebuttal PET indicated PAO's operating expense information is dated, PAO's national survey information is as of 2021 and 2022. PET indicated PAO's mean and median rents in their rental survey range from $2020 to $2,046/unit and PAO used $2,092 in their analysis. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate evidence in support of just value via the Cost Approach, Income Approach and Sales Comparison Approach with emphasis on the Income Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach. PET provided the Income Approach. PAO's expense estimate is understated. SM has revised the Income Approach and used PET's rent at $2,000/unit/month, other income at 5% of the gross at $432,000, the total income is $9,072,000, less vacancy of 12% or $1,088,640 indicates an EGI of $7,983,360. SM has estimated operating expenses, not including real estate taxes at 37% of EGI which is the mid -point between PAO and PET's estimate at $2,953,843. The NOI is $5,029,517. SM used PAO's cap rate of 6.70%. The indicated value is $75,067,415 less 15% cost of sales of $11,260,112 indicates a value of $63,807,303, less tangible property of $694,035 indicates a value of $63,113,270 rounded. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00112: 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. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: 2025-001 l 2 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). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $63,113,270. 2025-001 l 2 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00113 Parcel ID 67410000808 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 2442 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34105 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 13,008,472.00 13,008,472.00 12,640,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 13,008,472.00 13,008,472.00 12,640,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 13,008,472.00 13,008,472.00 12,640,000.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 12/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/19/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-001 l 3 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00113: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Steve Selejan and Mr. Ryan Malek, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $131008,472. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story Class C-average, big box retail building, known as Target. The building area is 121,602-sf, the land size is 488,308-sf or 11.21 acres. The building was built in 1994 and interior renovations made in 2023 in excess of $1,830,000. The property is located at 2442 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 117 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided 2025-00 ] ] 3 Page 2 of 7 rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. PAO presented a 24 page rebuttal, which consisted of deeds and property record cards for three of PET's improved sales. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO indicated that the subject is located at a busy commercial intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport Pulling Road. The traffic count at the subject is approximately 54,000 vehicles/day. 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 February 2012 to December 2024. The land sales range in size from 196,456-sf to 1,433,137-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $12.91 to $35.63/sf. The mean of the sales is $24.14/sf and the median is $23.26/sf. PAO provided three sales that sold from 9/25 to 10/25-outside the date of value of 1/l/2025-for trending purposes; these sales range in size from 379,843-sf to 1,126,234-sf and sold from $15.11/sf to $25.41/sf, with a mean of $19.24/sf and a median of $17.21/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $18.00/sf x 488,308-sf or $8,789,544. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $2,669,861, plus impact fees estimated at $2,022,000, plus the land value estimated at $8,789,544, plus entrepreneurial incentive at $1,145,941, for a total cost of $14,627,346. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $1214331244. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 sales of properties in south Florida. The sales occurred from April 2021 to August 2024. The sales range in building size from 60,010-sf to 138,000-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 7.28 acres to 13.13 acres with a floor area ratio of .19 to .31, the subject is at .25.The buildings were built from 1977 to 1995. The sales range from $69.00 to $201.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $146.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $150.00/sf of building area including land. PAO indicated Sale # 1 is close to the subject and is the best sale. PAO reconciled a value at $135.00/sf of building area including land on 121,602-sf, or $16,416,270. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $13,953,830. 2025-001 l 3 Page 3 of 7 PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided 48 market extracted market rents in Florida of big box properties. The building sizes range from 20,000-sf to 106,690-sf, with a mean of 35,627-sf and a median of 30,286-sf. The rents range from $8.00 to $35.00/sf with a mean of $15.40/sf and a median of $14.50/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $9.50/sf for the subject on 121,602-sf, for a gross rent of $ I J 55,219. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey Costar for the years 2020 to 2024. The 3-yr average is 3.7% and the 2024 average is 3.6%.PAo provided vacancy rates from national market surveys such as Cushman & Wakefield, Collier properties and CRE consultants that range from 3.9% to 4%%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 4% or $46,209. The effective gross income is $1,109,010. PAO analyzed the subject on a triple net basis where the tenant pays for most of the expensed. Miscellaneous operating expenses have been estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total of 8% of effective gross income or $88,721. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,020,289.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 10 sales of retail properties located in Florida. The cap rates range from 5.16% to 9.06% with a mean of 6.77% and a median of 6.94% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $4.74-$25.60/sf, with a mean of $10.87 and median of $10.07); two listings in Naples have cap rates from 5.83% to 6.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group, LSI and CRE consultants -Collier County and Retail, Avision Young, the average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.55% to 8.2% with an average of 6.87%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.5%. The NOI of $1,020,289 capitalized at 6.5% indicates a value of $15,696,760. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $13,257,246. PAO's just value conclusion: $13,008,472. 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 132-page. The report consists a cover letter, table of 2025-00 ] ] 3 Page 4 of 7 contents, property summary and opinion of value, property record card, and Costar details of the subject. PET included the Income Analysis and included market rents, with detail sheets on each rent comparable, with photos; PET provided market support for operating expenses and cap rates from national market surveys. PET included improved sales in chart form, with photographs in the addenda. PET provided several sales of Target store. PET included a uniformity analysis comparing the assessment of big box retail properties in Naples. PET provided information on the 1 st and 8th criterion. The addenda contains information on the sales and properties used in the uniformity analysis. PET developed the Sales Comparison and the Income Approach. The Cost Approach was not developed. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 8 rental comparables of big box properties located in Florida. The rents range in size from 50,000-sf to 205,000-s£ The rents range from $4.00/sf to $7.24/sf on a triple net basis. PET estimated a rent of $6.00/ sf triple net on an area of I I6,915-sf or $701,490. PET estimated a vacancy of 4% or $35,075. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $666,416. PET estimated the operating expenses at 6% of EGI or $39,985 and reserves and replacement at $0.28/sf or $32,736 for a total expense of 10.9% of EGI. The NOI is estimated at $593,694. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, such as CoStar, Avision Young, RERC, Marcus & Millichap, Realty Rates, PWC for the 4th Q 2024 and 1 st Q 2025. The cap rates range from 5.9% to 10.22% for retail properties, with an average of 6.86%. PET used a cap rate of 6.10%. The NOI of $593,694.00 capitalized at 6.1% indicates a value of $9,732,695 less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $812721790. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sale of properties throughout the state of Florida. The sales occurred from February 2023 to November 2024. The sales range in building size from 91,324-sf to 1551,941-sf. The buildings were built from 1987 to 2024. PET made a -15% adjustment for cost of sales; the sales range from $33.23/sf to $81.81/sf of building area including land, with an average of adjusted sales at $61.26/sf. PET estimated a value of $61.26/sf on 116,918-sf for an indicated value of $7,162,410. PET provided Target Sales throughout the United States that sold from 1/20 to 2/25. The average sale price is $13.48/sf. 2025-00 ] ] 3 Page 5 of 7 PET provided a uniformity analysis by comparing the assessment of 12 big box stores in Naples the average assessment is $92.44/sf. PET applied $92.44 to 116,918-sf for a value of $10,807,946. The most comparable property was at $87.09 for a value of $10,182,127. PET's reconciled value conclusion $8,539,112. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the main difference is in the market rent, PET used $6.00/sf and PAO used $9.50/sf triple net. PAO provided as rebuttal deeds and property record cards for three of PET's improved sales (Sales # 1, 2, 3), Sales # 1 and 2 are on ground leases and the ground lease was sold, Sale # 3 is the sale of a 7-Eleven store. As rebuttal PET indicated PAO's sales # 4 & 5 are disqualified sales, however PAO indicate, although the Florida Department of Revenue disqualifies a sale it does not necessarily mean the sale was not a market sale. PET indicated PAO's rental rates are for buildings smaller than the subject and the subject would be rented at a rate lower than PAO indicated. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's rents and improved sales are mostly from data gathered throughout the state of Florida, with little support for the Naples market. PET's rents are located in inferior locations, as compared to the subject. PET's rent is understated. PET used 116,918-sf and the property record card shows 121,602-sf. PAO used rents that are smaller than the subject. SM has reconstructed the Income Approach using a market rent of $9.00/sf triple net. The indicated gross rent at $9.00/sf is $1,094,418, less 4% vacancy indicates an effective rent of $1,050,641; deducting 8% operating expenses of $84,051 indicates an NOI of $966,590. Capitalizing the NOI at 6.50% indicates a value of $14,870,615, less cost of sales indicated a value of $12,640,000 rounded. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00113: 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 2025-00 ] ] 3 Page 6 of 7 making the assessment is appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO's assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $12,640,000. 2025-00 ] ] 3 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00120 Parcel ID 24745001065 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC Property 2417 TARPON BAYBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34119 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 16,770,155.00 16,770,155.00 16,770,155.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,770,155.00 16,770,155.00 16,770,155.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,770,155.00 16,770,155.00 16,770,155.00 *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 12/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00120 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00120: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Steve Selejan and Mr. Ryan Malek, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $161770,155. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story Class C-average/good, big box retail building, known as a Super Target. The building area is 175,337-sf, the land size is 636,412-sf or 14.61 acres. The building was built in 2007 and interior remodeling was completed in 2023 at a cost of $4,400,000. The property is located at the southeast corner of Interstate 75 (1-75) and Immokalee Road, with an exit off I-75 at Immokalee Road. The property is located at 2417 Tarpon Bay Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 111 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison 2025-00120 Page 2 of 7 Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. PAO presented a 24 page rebuttal, which consisted of deeds and property record cards for three of PET's improved sales. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO indicated that the subject is located at a busy commercial intersection at the SEC of Immokalee Road and Interstate-75. The traffic count at the subject is approximately 54,500 vehicles/day. 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 February 2012 to December 2024. The land sales range in size from 196,456-sf to 1,433,137-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $12.91 to $35.63/sf. The mean of the sales is $24.14/sf and the median is $23.26/sf. PAO provided three sales that sold from 9/25 to 10/25-outside the date of value of 1/l/2025-for trending purposes; these sales range in size from 379,843-sf to 1,126,234-sf and sold from $15.11/sf to $25.41/sf, with a mean of $19.24/sf and a median of $17.21/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $18.00/sf x 636,412-sf or $11,4551416. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $10,091,782, plus impact fees estimated at $2,930,000, plus the land value estimated at $11,455,416, plus entrepreneurial incentive at $2,154,720, for a total cost of $261631,918. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $22,637,713. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 sales of properties in south Florida. The sales occurred from April 2021 to August 2024. The sales range in building size from 60,010-sf to 138,000-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 7.28 acres to 13.13 acres with a floor area ratio of .19 to .31, the subject is at .28.The buildings were built from 1977 to 1995. The sales range from $69.00 to $201.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $146.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $150.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $135.00/sf of building area including land on 175,337-sf, or $23,670,495. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $20,1191920. 2025-00120 Page 3 of 7 PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided 48 market extracted market rents in Florida of big box properties. The building sizes range from 20,000-sf to 106,690-sf, with a mean of 35,627-sf and a median of 30,286-sf. The rents range from $8.00 to $35.00/sf with a mean of $15.40/sf and a median of $14.50/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net of $9.00/sf for the subject on 175,337-sf, for a gross rent of $115781033. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey Costar for the years 2020 to 2024. The 3-yr average is 3.7% and the 2024 average is 3.6%.PAo provided vacancy rates from national market surveys such as Cushman & Wakefield, Collier properties and CRE consultants that range from 3.9% to 4%%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 4% or $63,121. The effective gross income is $1,514,912. PAO analyzed the subject on a triple net basis where the tenant pays for most of the expensed. Miscellaneous operating expenses have been estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total of 8% of effective gross income or $121,193. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,393,719. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 10 sales of retail properties located in Florida. The cap rates range from 5.16% to 9.06% with a mean of 6.77% and a median of 6.94% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $4.74-$25.60/sf, with a mean of $10.87 and median of $10.07); two listings in Naples have cap rates from 5.83% to 6.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group, LSI and CRE consultants -Collier County and Retail, Avision Young, the average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.55% to 8.2% with an average of 6.87%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.5%. The NOI of $1,393,719capitalized at 6.5% indicates a value of $21,441,827. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $18,225,553. PAO's just value conclusion: $16,770,155. 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 120-page. The report consists a cover letter, table of 2025-00120 Page 4 of 7 contents, property summary and opinion of value, property record card, and Costar details of the subject. PET included the Income Analysis and included market rents, with detail sheets on each rent comparable, with photos; PET provided market support for operating expenses and cap rates from national market surveys. PET included improved sales in chart form, with photographs in the addenda. PET provided several sales of Target store. PET included a uniformity analysis comparing the assessment of big box retail properties in Naples. PET provided information on the 1 st and 8th criterion. The addenda contains information on the sales and properties used in the uniformity analysis. PET developed the Sales Comparison and the Income Approach. The Cost Approach was not developed. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 8 rental comparables of big box properties located in Florida. The rents range in size from 50,000-sf to 205,000-sf. The rents range from $4.00/sf to $7.24/sf on a triple net basis. PET estimated a rent of $6.00/ sf triple net on an area of 173,682-sf or $1,042,092. PET estimated a vacancy of 4% or $52,105. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $989,987. PET estimated the operating expenses at 6% of EGI or $59,399 and reserves and replacement at $0.28/sf or $48,631 for a total expense of 10.9% of EGI. The NOI is estimated at $881,957. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, such as CoStar, Avision Young, RERC, Marcus & Millichap, Realty Rates, PWC for the 4th Q 2024 and 1 st Q 2025. The cap rates range from 5.9% to 10.22% for retail properties, with an average of 6.86%. PET used a cap rate of 6.10%. The NOI of $881,957 capitalized at 6.1% indicates a value of $14,458,215 less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $12,289,600. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sale of properties throughout the state of Florida. The sales occurred from February 2023 to November 2024. The sales range in building size from 91,324-sf to 1551,941-sf. The buildings were built from 1987 to 2024. PET made a -15% adjustment for cost of sales; the sales range from $33.23/sf to $81.81/sf of building area including land, with an average of adjusted sales at $61.26/sf. PET estimated a value of $61.26/sf on 173,682-sf for an indicated value of $10,6401052. PET provided Target Sales throughout the United States that sold from 1/20 to 2/25. The average sale price is $13.48/sf. 2025-00120 Page 5 of 7 PET provided a uniformity analysis by comparing the assessment of 8 big box stores in Naples the average assessment is $89.31/sf. PET applied $89.31 to 173,682-sf for a value of $15,511,956. The most comparable property was at $89.91 for a value of $15,615,749. PET's reconciled value conclusion $12,848,467. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the main difference is in the market rent, PET used $6.00/sf and PAO used $9.00/sf triple net. PAO provided as rebuttal deeds and property record cards for three of PET's improved sales (Sales # 1, 2, 3), Sales # 1 and 2 are on ground leases and the ground lease was sold, Sale # 3 is the sale of a 7-Eleven store. As rebuttal PET indicated PAO's sales # 4 & 5 are disqualified sales, however PAO indicate, although the Florida Department of Revenue disqualifies a sale it does not necessarily mean the sale was not a market sale. PET indicated PAO's rental rates are for buildings smaller than the subject and the subject would be rented at a rate lower than PAO indicated. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's rents and improved sales are mostly from data gathered throughout the state of Florida, with little support for the Naples market. PET's rents are located in inferior locations, as compared to the subject. PET's rent is understated. PET used 173,682-sf and the property record card shows 175,337-sf. PAO used rents that are smaller than the subject. SM has reconstructed the Income Approach using a market rent of $8.50/sf triple net, based on size, age and condition. The indicated gross rent at $8.50/sf is $1,490,365, less 4% vacancy indicates an effective rent of $1,430,750; deducting 8% operating expenses of $114,460 indicates an NOI of $1,316,290; capitalizing the NOI at 6.50% indicates a value of $20,250,614, less cost of sales indicates a value of $17,213,000 rounded, which is higher than the just value of $16,770,155 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 2025-00120: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00120 Page 6 of 7 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00120 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00122 Parcel ID 55050760002 Petitioner name MCDONNELL, JOHN J Property 342 HIDDEN VALLEY DR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 352,183.00 352,183.00 352,183.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 90,069.00 90,069.00 90,069.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 90,069.00 90,069.00 90,069.00 *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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00122 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00122: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Ms. Maryanne Greger, and Mr. Steve Csaki. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. John McDonnell, owners of the property and Ms. Lisa McGaricy, a consultant for the owners. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3521183. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a vacant residential single-family corner lot, located in Lely Golf Estates subdivision. The land size is 14,374.8-sf. The property is located at 342 Hidden Valley Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 26 pages. The report included the evidence and 2025-00122 Page 2 of 4 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, and photographs of the subject. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided land sales, in chart form, with aerial photographs of each sale and a location map of the sales. PAO included the multiple listing history for the subject, and 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 Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 3 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. PAO indicated the neighborhood is mostly built-up and no vacant land sales occurred in the past year. All comparable sales are corner lots similar to the subject and in the same neighborhood. The sales occurred from May 2024 to August 2024. The lots range in size from 11,761.2-sf to 13,939.2-sf. PAO adjusted the sales for time of sale to the date of value of l/l/25 at -2% to -3%. PAO deducted for cost of sales at -15% and deducted the depreciated cost of the improvements to arrive at a land value. The range in adjusted sales is $24.00 to $33.00/sf, with a mean of $28.00/sf and a median of $25.00/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $25.00/sf x 14,374.8-sf = $363,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 16-page report, consisting of a cover page, the price range of homes in subject neighborhood and an estimate of lot values in neighborhood. PET provided a map of subject lot and location map. PET provided information dated 9/2008 which is not relevant to the 2025 valuation. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated homes in the neighborhood are selling in the $500,000 to $650,000 range for older three -bedroom homes; the land value for these homes, assuming a value of the home averages $550,000, with a 20% value allocated for the lot and 80% value allocated for the building, the land value would be in the $110,000 range. The current just value for the subject land at $352,183 would support a home in the $1.7 million range, which is substantially higher than what properties are currently selling for in the range of $500,000 to $650,000. PET indicated Collier County owns the lot adjacent to the subject, PET indicated this lot was for sale but did not sell. 2025-00122 Page 3 of 4 PAO indicated each valuation year stands alone and the value from prior years is not relevant to the current year. PAO used three improved sales (for lack of current comparable land sales in the neighborhood), that recently sold and deducted the depreciated improvement value for each sale, the remaining is the current land value. Each sale is a corner lot, similar to the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided the Sales Comparison approach, with residual land sales in the same neighborhood as the subject and all are corner lots similar to the subject. PET did not provide evidence of sales of homes or land in subject neighborhood. PAO's sales are current with the depreciated value of the improvements deducted to arrive at a current land value. SM is of the opinion that PET's land analysis of 20% of the value attributed to the land and 80% attributed to the building is more appropriate for new construction(where no building depreciation is needed) PET does not take into account the current depreciated value of the improvements 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 2025-00122: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00122 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00123 Parcel ID 55050800001 Petitioner name MCDONNELL, JOHN J Property 348 HIDDEN VALLEY DR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 277,477.00 277,477.00 277,477.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 77,213.00 77,213.00 77,213.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 77,213.00 77,213.00 77,213.00 *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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00123 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00123: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Ms. Maryanne Greger, and Mr. Steve Csaki. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. John McDonnell, owners of the property and Ms. Lisa McGaricy, a consultant for the owners. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $277,477. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a vacant residential single-family lot, located in Lely Golf Estates subdivision. The land size is 11,325.E-sf. The property is located at 348 Hidden Valley Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 26 pages. The report included the evidence and 2025-00123 Page 2 of 4 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, and photographs of the subject. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided land sales, in chart form, with aerial photographs of each sale and a location map of the sales. PAO included the multiple listing history for the subject, and 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 Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 4 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. PAO indicated the neighborhood is mostly built-up and no vacant land sales occurred in the past year. Three comparable sales are interior lots, similar to the subject and one is a corner lot, all in the same neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2024 to December 2024. The lots range in size from 10,018.8-sf to 11,761.2-sf. PAO adjusted the sales for time of sale to the date of value of l/l/25 at 0% to 4%. PAO deducted for cost of sales at -15% and deducted the depreciated cost of the improvements to arrive at a land value. The range in adjusted sales is $24.00 to $33.00/ sf, with a mean of $28.00/sf and a median of $28.00/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $28.00/sf x 11,325.6-sf = $317,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 16-page report, consisting of a cover page, the price range of homes in subject neighborhood and an estimate of lot values in neighborhood. PET provided a map of subject lot and location map. PET provided information dated 9/2008 which is not relevant to the 2025 valuation. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated homes in the neighborhood are selling in the $500,000 to $650,000 range for older three -bedroom homes; the land value for these homes, assuming a value of the home averages $550,000, with a 20% value allocated for the lot and 80% value allocated for the building, the land value would be in the $110,000 range. The current just value for the subject land at $352,183 would support a home in the $1.7 million range, which is substantially higher than what properties are currently selling for in the range of $500,000 to $650,000. PET indicated Collier County owns the lot adjacent to the subject, PET indicated this lot was for sale but did not sell. 2025-00123 Page 3 of 4 PAO indicated each valuation year stands alone and the value from prior years is not relevant to the current year. PAO used 4 improved sales (for lack of current comparable land sales in the neighborhood), that recently sold and deducted the depreciated improvement value for each sale, the remaining is the current land value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided the Sales Comparison approach, with residual land sales in the same neighborhood as the subject. PET did not provide evidence of sales of homes or land in subject neighborhood. PAO's sales are current with the depreciated value of the improvements deducted to arrive at a current land value. SM is of the opinion that PET's land analysis of 20% of the value attributed to the land and 80% attributed to the building is more appropriate for new construction (where no building depreciation is needed) PET does not take into account the current depreciated value of the improvements 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 2025-00123: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00123 Page 4 of 4 F10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00124 Parcel ID 55051320001 Petitioner name MCDONNELL, JOHN J Property 349 SAINT ANDREWS BLVD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34113 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 256,133.00 256,133.00 256,133.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 71,762.00 71,762.00 71,762.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 71,762.00 71,762.00 71,762.00 *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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00124 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00124: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Ms. Maryanne Greger, and Mr. Steve Csaki. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. John McDonnell, owners of the property and Ms. Lisa McGaricy, a consultant for the owners. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2561133. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a vacant residential single-family lot, located in Lely Golf Estates subdivision. The land size is 10,454.4-sf. The property is located at 349 Saint Andrews Boulevard, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 26 pages. The report included the evidence and 2025-00124 Page 2 of 4 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, and photographs of the subject. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided land sales, in chart form, with aerial photographs of each sale and a location map of the sales. PAO included the multiple listing history for the subject, and 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 Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 4 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. PAO indicated the neighborhood is mostly built-up and no vacant land sales occurred in the past year. Three comparable sales are interior lots, similar to the subject and one is a corner lot, all in the same neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2024 to December 2024. The lots range in size from 10,018.8-sf to 11,761.2-sf. PAO adjusted the sales for time of sale to the date of value of l/l/25 at 0% to 4%. PAO deducted for cost of sales at -15% and deducted the depreciated cost of the improvements to arrive at a land value. The range in adjusted sales is $24.00 to $33.00/ sf, with a mean of $28.00/sf and a median of $28.00/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $28.00/sf x 10,454.4-sf = $293,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 16-page report, consisting of a cover page, the price range of homes in subject neighborhood and an estimate of lot values in neighborhood. PET provided a map of subject lot and location map. PET provided information dated 9/2008 which is not relevant to the 2025 valuation. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated homes in the neighborhood are selling in the $500,000 to $650,000 range for older three -bedroom homes; the land value for these homes, assuming a value of the home averages $550,000, with a 20% value allocated for the lot and 80% value allocated for the building, the land value would be in the $110,000 range. The current just value for the subject land at $352,183 would support a home in the $1.7 million range, which is substantially higher than what properties are currently selling for in the range of $500,000 to $650,000. PET indicated Collier County owns the lot adjacent to the subject, PET indicated this lot was for sale but did not sell. 2025-00124 Page 3 of 4 PAO indicated each valuation year stands alone and the value from prior years is not relevant to the current year. PAO used 4 improved sales (for lack of current comparable land sales in the neighborhood), that recently sold and deducted the depreciated improvement value for each sale, the remaining is the current land value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided the Sales Comparison approach, with residual land sales in the same neighborhood as the subject. PET did not provide evidence of sales of homes or land in subject neighborhood. PAO's sales are current with the depreciated value of the improvements deducted to arrive at a current land value. SM is of the opinion that PET's land analysis of 20% of the value attributed to the land and 80% attributed to the building is more appropriate for new construction (where no building depreciation is needed) PET does not take into account the current depreciated value of the improvements 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 2025-00124: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00124 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00133 Parcel ID 25117504788 Petitioner name GRAHAM, JAMES DEBORAH Property 6598 CALDECOTT DR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34113 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,273,594.00 1,273,594.00 1,092,600.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 607,592.00 607,592.00 607,592.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 607,592.00 607,592.00 607,592.00 *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 10/23/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/24/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00133 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00133: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were Deborah and James Graham, owners of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,273,594. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling. The base building area is 1,980-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,381-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .27 acres or 11,325.6-sf. The property was built in 2008, with an effective age of 2010. The property is located at 6598 Caldecott Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. 2025-00 ] 33 Page 2 of 4 PAO presented a report containing 29 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for history for the subject and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to October 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,631-sf to 2,046-sf and adjusted building size of 2,008-sf to 2,588-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 6,534-sf to 10,018-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2008 to 2015, the subject's effective age is 2010. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 1-4%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $512.00 to $669.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $577.00/sf and a median of $576.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $576.00/ sf of building area including land on 2,381-sf or $1,371,000 rounded. PET did not exchange evidence with PAO. At the hearing, PET indicated most of PAO's improved sales are located in superior neighborhoods to the subject in Lely Resort Subdivision and that properties in subject neighborhood are smaller in size and are selling for less than the sales in the neighborhoods provided by PAO. PAO provided one sale on subject street that sold for $895,000 in October 2024. PET considers this the most comparable of all the sales provided. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Sales Comparison approach using current 2024 sales in Lely Resort subdivision. PAO used sales in the same area (not the same neighborhood) as the subject. Of all PAO's sales, sale # 4 is the closest (in same neighborhood) and most recent sale, similar and age and quality, smaller in land size and building size; the land size is 7,841-sf and building size is 2,168-sf adj to the subject. PAO made a substantial positive adjustment to the land size for sale #4 at $117.25/sf for the difference in land size of 3,486-sf from the subject to the sale; the other sales have a land adjustment, for the difference in size, of $80.93/sf for sale # 1 and $231.00/sf for sales # 2 and 3 and the last sale has an adjustment of $117.25/sf. SM has used the difference in land value of sale # 1 at $80.93/sf on a difference in land size 2025-00 ] 33 Page 3 of 4 between the subject and the sale #4 of 3,486-sf for a total of $282,000 rounded; this sale is in a similar neighborhood to the subject. The remaining adjustments are $57,459, for total adjustment of $339,459 for sale #4. The time and cost of sale adjusted price is $7531143 + $339,459 = $1,092,600 or $458.88/sf rounded. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00133: 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 did not arrive at the assessment by complying with these standards, PAO's value is overstated. PAO did not establish 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). Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $1,092,600. 2025-00 ] 33 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00134 Parcel ID 38102640000 Petitioner name DDL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LP Property 3265 68THSTSW The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34105 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,222,221.00 1,222,221.00 1,222,221.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,222,221.00 1,222,221.00 1,222,221.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,222,221.00 1,222,221.00 1,222,221.00 *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 11/04/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00134 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00134: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioner (PET), DDL Property Holdings, owner of subject property was not present at the hearing, however requested their evidence be presented in their absence. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $112221221. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling, with pool area. The property is located in the Golden Estate subdivision. The base building area is 2,397-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,868-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 3.55 acres with 2.44 acres of uplands and 1.11 acres on canal with nominal value. The property was built in 1982, with an effective age of 201. The property is located at 3265 68th Street SW, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00 ] 34 Page 2 of 4 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 3 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to April 2024. The lots range in size from 2.41 acres to 2.27 acres. The sales range in value from $268,400.88/acre to $305,234.8/acre. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and PET deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $291,286.31/acre x 2.44 acres = $7101739. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $56,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $547,461 the land value is estimated at $710,739 for a total cost of $1,314,200. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 3 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to April 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 2,168-sf to 2,901-sf and adjusted building size of 2,661-sf to 3,273-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 2.41 acres to 2.27 acres. The buildings have an effective age from 1995 to 2005. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -4% and, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $373.00 to $449.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $420.00/sf and a median of $439.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $439.00/sf of building area including land on 2,868-sf or $1,258,000 rounded. 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 2025-00 ] 34 Page 3 of 4 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present at the hearing, however requested their evidence be heard in their absence. PET did not submit evidence in a timely manner to the PAO and PET did not exchange evidence with PAO, when requested. No evidence was heard from PET. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00134: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00 ] 34 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00155 Parcel ID 00402404013 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 1745 HERITAGETRL The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34112 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,627,746.00 3,627,746.00 3,627,746.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,448,375.00 3,448,375.00 3,448,375.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,448,375.00 3,448,375.00 3,448,375.00 *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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 02/14/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00155 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00155: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Nicholas Mau, from First Pointe Advisors, LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,627,746. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a 1-story, Class C-good medical -surgical office building. The total building area is 11,548-sf. The land size is 15,197-sf or .35 acres. The property was built in 2006 and renovated with an addition in 2022. The property was reported at 100% occupancy as of January 1, 2025. The property is located at 1745 Heritage Trail, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO indicated office rents in Collier County are rising and the occupancy is stable (at 92.7% to 95.3%) in contrast to the national market and other areas in Florida. There is no indication of oversupply of office space in Naples and with the ageing population in Collier county and high median household income demand for medical and financial office space should remain strong. Sales of office buildings have been scarce in the past year, due in part by high interest rates. PAO indicated operating expenses are on the rise due primarily to the high cost of insurance. 2025-00155 Page 2 of 6 PAO presented a report containing 87 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO provided the recent building permits for the subject, the renovations, in 2022, were $4,400,000. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description with plat, sale history comments, ground lease assumption excerpt, impact fee calculator, confidential rent comparables, market data support and 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 presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 8 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from February 2023 to December 2024. The sales range in building size from 3,252-sf to 22,258-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .52 acres to 1.27 acres; with a land to building ratio ranging from .10 to .30, the subject has a land to building ratio of .76. The buildings were built from 1988 to 2008. The unadjusted sales range from $309.00 to $847.00/sf, with a mean of $532.00/sf and a median of $443.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $450.00/ sf of building area including land of 11,548-sf or $5,196,600. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $4,417,110. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of office buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from CoStar, a national real estate market data survey company. The net rents range from $16.00/sf to $56.68/sf with a mean of $28.04/sf and a median of $28.00/sf. PAO estimated a rent of $35.00/sf on 11,548-sf at $404,180.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for office space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 4.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 4.8% to 5.3%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 8% for the subject or $32,334 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $371,846. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2025-00155 Page 3 of 6 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income or $29,748. The net operating income is estimated at $342,098. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from office sales throughout Florida, with some sales in Naples and Fort Myers. The sales occurred from January 2024 to January 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.08% to 9.00% with a mean of 6.70% and a median of 6.84%. PAO provided the cap rate for office buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC. The average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 10.00% with an average of 7.78%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.75%. The NOI of $342,098 capitalized at 6.75% indicates a value of $5,068,118. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $4,307,900. PAO's just value $3,627,746 or $314.00/sf. 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 57-pages and consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, summary of salient facts, property record cards, location map and photographs and aerial of subject. PET provided the Income Approach based on Market rents from CoStar in the Naples area, with a detail sheet on each rent comparable. PET provided support for a cap rate from national surveys. PET provided excerpts from The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines adopted 11/22-Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Administration Program. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach and included sales in chart form with the property record card for each sale. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 5 market rents from Costar, in Collier County. The rents range from $15.46 to $22.00/sf triple net. PET estimated a market rent of $22.00/sf on 11,548-sf for a gross income of $254,056. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% for subject or $12,703. The effective gross income is $241,353. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 7% of EGI and reserves at 2% of EGI for total expenses of $20,937. Net operating income is $220,417. PET provided cap rates from national surveys Viewpoint with cap rates for suburban 2025-00155 Page 4 of 6 office space in Naples in the range of 7% to 8%, Costar indicated cap rates in the 7% to 9% range, PCW for southwest Florida is in the range of 7% to 10%. PET estimated a cap rate of 7.5% PET capitalized the NOI of $220,417 at 7.5% for an estimated value of $2,938,889, less 15% COS indicates a value of $2,498,056 or $216.00/sf. PET rounded the value to $215001000. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 2 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from May 2023 to June 2024. The sales range in building size from 2,942-sf to 5,878-sf. The buildings were built from 2000 to 2004. The sales adjusted for cost of sale range from $272.00 to $303.00/sf, with a mean of $288.00/ sf and a median of $288.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $288.00/sf of building area including land of 11,548-sf or $3,321,356, rounded to $3132000. PET is requesting a value of $2,500,000 As rebuttal, PAO did a side by side analysis of PAO and PET's income approach, the main difference is in the market rent, PAO has $35.00/sf and PET had $22.00/sf, and the difference in cap rate, PAO has 6.75% and PET has 7%. PAO provided cap rates from actual sales in Collier County and not from national surveys, the local cap rates are more indicative for the subject property. PET's rents are not medical office rents. PET provided 2 improved sales that are not medical office buildings but general office space. The subject is a medical office building and commands a higher value than general office. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's rents range from $16.00 to $56.68/sf with an average of $28.04 and a median of $28.00/sf, PAO used a much higher rate at $35.00/sf. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO and PET provided an Income and Sales comparison Approach. PET's rent is low at $22.00/sf for a medical office building in a good location, PET used general office rents. The medical office rents from PAO range from $30.00 to $56.68/sf. PET's office sales are not reflective of medical office and are inferior to the subject. If a rent of $30.00/sf is used the gross income is $346,440, less 8% vacancy and less 8% expenses indicates an NOI of $293,227; the NOI capitalized at 6.75% indicates a value of $4,344,100, less 15% cost of sale is $3,692,485, which is higher than the just value. 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. 2025-00155 Page 5 of 6 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00155: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00155 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00162 Parcel ID 67080680001 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 4716 TAM IAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34112 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,535,015.00 1,535,015.00 1,535,015.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,174,174.00 1,174,174.00 1,174,174.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,174,174.00 1,174,174.00 1,174,174.00 *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 02/14/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00162 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00162: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, 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 petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $1,535,015. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00 ] 62 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00163 Parcel ID 66760012725 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 5825 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,547,658.00 2,547,658.00 2,547,658.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,504,150.00 2,504,150.00 2,504,150.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,504,150.00 2,504,150.00 2,504,150.00 *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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 02/14/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00163 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00163: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Nicholas Mau, from First Pointe Advisors, LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,547,658. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-Good fast food restaurant, occupied by Chick-Fil-A. The building area is 4,644-sf. the land size is 44,867-sf or 1.03 acres. The building was built in 2006. The property is subject to a ground lease. PAO and PET provided a Fee Simple value for the entire property. The property is located at 5825 Airport Road N., Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 121 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed 2025-00 ] 63 Page 2 of 7 description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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. The subject property is on a ground lease. PAO and PET provided a Fee Simple value for the entire property. 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 Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf; the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicate Sales # 2 and 5 are rear parcels with no frontage, which accounts for the low price/sf. Sale # 1 at 5947 Naples Blvd, at $68.95/sf, is the closest sale to the subject and is superior in location, Sale #6 has the same use as the subject and sold at $48.93/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $50.00/sf x 44,867-sf or $2,243,350. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $966,797, impact fees at $494,000, the land value is estimated at $2,243,350, entrepreneurial profit at $321,015 indicates a total cost of $4,025,162. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $3,421,387. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of restaurant properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from December 2020 to May 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,940-sf to 8,986-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 13,358-sf to 85,813-sf, with a Floor area ratio ranging from .08 to .15, the subject has a floor area ratio of. 10. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2022. The unadjusted sales range from $474.00 to $1,055.00/sf, with a mean of $658.00/sf and a median of $617.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $800.00/sf of building area including land on 4,644-sf or $3,715,200. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $3,157,920. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from CoStar, a national real 2025-00163 Page 3 of 7 estate market data survey company. The single tenant restaurant user rents range from $22.00/sf to $163.15/sf , triple net, with a mean of $56.58/sf and a median of $48.00/sf. PAO provided net rents from the net operating income (NOI) from sales that range from $16.19/sf to $78.00/sf with a mean of $44.12/sf and a mean of $40.22/sf. PAO estimated a market rent of $55.00/sf on 4,644-sf including the land. The gross rent on a triple net basis is $255,420. PAO provided confidential ground leases for retail properties dated 1/21 to 5/25 that range from $1.25/sf to $14.45/sf with a mean of $4.48/sf and a median of $2.66/sf. PAO estimated a ground rent of $5.60/sf based on a land size of 44,867-sf for a total rent of $251,255, very close to the rent derived by the rents from the building and land. Although Special Magistrate(SM) does not consider confidential rents, these were included as per PAO's report, no emphasis was placed by SM on the value derived by the land rent. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6% for the year 2024. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.1 % to 10.8%, with an average of 3.9%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject or $10,217 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $245,203. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of the effective gross income or $19,616. The net operating income is estimated at $225,587. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from restaurant sales in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from January 2024 to May 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.11% to 7.83% with a mean of 6.12% and a median of 5.83%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. %. The Boulder Group indicates cap rates for Chick-Fil-A on long term leases in the range of 4.20% to 4.50% for 15 year leases and 5.10% to 5.40% for 5 year leases. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.00% for the subject. The NOI of $225,587 capitalized at 6.00% indicates a value of $3,759,782. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $311951814. The value derived by PAO on the ground rent with an estimated annual income of $241,255, deducting a vacancy of 4% and deducting expenses of 8% of the effective gross income and using a cap rate of 6% indicates a value of $3,698,477, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $3,143,705. 2025-00163 Page 4 of 7 PAO's just value is $2,547,658 or $549.00/sf. 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 114 page report containing the 2025 tax year statutory and cost of sales package. The report contains Florida Statues that govern the Value Adjustment Board process, valuation process as well as consideration of FS 193.011 (8), known as cost of sales. PET presented a report containing 70-pages and consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, summary of salient facts, property record cards, building sketch, location map and photograph of subject. PET provided the Cost Approach and included a cost breakdown of the building and support for the costs from related pages for Fast Food Restaurants from Marshall Valuation a cost manual. PET provided the Income Approach based on Market rents from Costar in the Naples area, with a detail sheet on each rent comparable. PET provided support for a cap rate from national surveys. PET provided excerpts from the International Association of Assessing officers (IAAO) on rental units of comparison for types on Income -Producing Properties and excerpts from The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines adopted 11/22-Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Administration Program. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. At the hearing PET revised the value by the Cost Approach from $2,240,000 to $2,360,000 after cost of sale of 15%. PET developed the Cost Approach. PET developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost new is estimated at $1,107,104 and includes entrepreneurial profit of 8% and soft costs at 10% of cost new. The depreciated building cost is estimated at $985,323, PET added a land value of $1,722,568($38.39/sf of land) for a total value by the Cost Approach is $2,707,891, less 15% cost of sales. PET indicated a value of $2,360,000. PET had the incorrect building size in the evidence provided, at the hearing PET revised the value by the Income Approach based on the correct building size from $2,103,277 to $2,400,000 after cost of sale of 15% PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 13 restaurant rents, throughout Florida, that date from July 2022 to January 2025. The rents range from $23.00/sf to $44.00/sf triple net, with an average rent of $37.00/sf and a median of $38.00/sf. PET estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf triple net on 4,644-sf for a gross 2025-00 ] 63 Page 5 of 7 income of $208,980. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% for subject or $10,4949. The effective gross income (EGI) is $198,531. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 7% of EGI and reserves at 1 % of EGI for total expenses of $15,882. Net operating income is $182,648. PET provided cap rates from national surveys PCW at 6.25% to 9% for 1 st Q 2025, Boulder Group net lease casual dining has cap rates for a 16-20 year lease at 6.1 % and for a 5 year or under term at 7.40%, Viewpoint has retail centers in Naples at 6.5%-6.75%. PET estimated a cap rate of 6.00% PET capitalized the NOI of $182,648 at 6.50% for an estimated value of $2,809,977, less 15% COS indicates a value of $2,388,480 rounded to $2,400,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the difference in the cost approach is primarily based on the good or average quality used; also, PAO adds profit on land and building, PET added profit on the building only. PET's land value is understated. PET had no rebuttal. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET provided the Cost and Income Approaches. Some of PET's asking rents in the Income Approach appear dated and not reflective of current rents, also, the rents appear to be of buildings formerly occupied by fast food restaurants, this could indicate these restaurants were not successful at these locations and are not comparable to the subject location at a busy location. PET's revised land value at $38.39/sf is low for this location; PAO has a sale on Naples Blvd near the subject that sold for $68.95/sf and this location is superior to the subject, PAO's land sale #6 is to be developed with a similar use to the subject and recently sold for $48.93/sf. 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 2025-00163: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00163 Page 6 of 7 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00 ] 63 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00164 Parcel ID 21842600126 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 8610 ADDISON PLACE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34119 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,539,917.00 3,539,917.00 3,539,917.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,539,917.00 3,539,917.00 3,539,917.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,539,917.00 3,539,917.00 3,539,917.00 *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 02/14/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00164 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00164: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Nicholas Mau, from First Pointe Advisors, LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,539,917. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-Good fast food restaurant, occupied by Chick-Fil-A. The building area is 5,121-sf. the land size is 59,175-sf or 1.36 acres. The building was built in 2022. The property is subject to a ground lease. PAO and PET provided a Fee Simple value for the entire property. The property is located at 8610 Addison Place Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 116 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed 2025-00 ] 64 Page 2 of 7 description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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. The subject property is on a ground lease. PAO and PET provided a Fee Simple value for the entire property. 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 Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf; the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicate Sales # 2 and 5 are rear parcels with no frontage, which accounts for the low price/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf x 59,175-sf or $2,662,875. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $1,563,595, impact fees at $545,000, the land value is estimated at $2,662,875, entrepreneurial profit at $422,647 indicates a total cost of $5,194,118. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $4,415,000. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of restaurant properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from December 2020 to May 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,940-sf to 8,986-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 13,358-sf to 85,813-sf, with a Floor area ratio ranging from .08 to .15, the subject has a floor area ratio of .09. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2022. The unadjusted sales range from $474.00 to $1,055.00/sf, with a mean of $658.00/sf and a median of $617.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $825.00/sf of building area including land on 5,121-sf or $4,224,825. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $31591,100. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from CoStar, a national real estate market data survey company. The single tenant restaurant user rents range from $22.00/sf to $163.15/sf , triple net, with a mean of $56.58/sf and a median of $48.00/sf. 2025-00164 Page 3 of 7 PAO provided net rents from the net operating income (NOI) from sales that range from $16.19/sf to $78.00/sf with a mean of $44.12/sf and a mean of $40.22/sf. PAO estimated a market rent of $60.00/sf on 5,121-sf including the land for a gross rent on a triple net basis of $286,776. PAO provided confidential ground leases for retail properties dated 1/21 to 5/25 that range from $1.25/sf to $14.45/sf with a mean of $4.48/sf and a median of $2.66/sf. PAO estimated a ground rent of $4.85/sf based on a land size of 59,175-sf for a total rent of $286,999, very close to the rent derived by the rents from the building and land. Although Special Magistrate(SM) does not consider confidential rents, these were included as per PAO's report, no emphasis was placed by SM on the value derived by the land rent. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6% for the year 2024. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.1 % to 10.8%, with an average of 3.9%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject or $11,471 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $275,305. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of the effective gross income or $22,024. The net operating income is estimated at $253,281. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from restaurant sales in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from January 2024 to May 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.11% to 7.83% with a mean of 6.12% and a median of 5.83%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. %. The Boulder Group indicates cap rates for Chick-Fil-A on long term leases in the range of 4.20% to 4.50% for 15 year leases and 5.10% to 5.40% for 5 year leases. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.00% for the subject. The NOI of $253,281 capitalized at 6.00% indicates a value of $4,221,343. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $315881142. The value derived by PAO on the ground rent with an estimated annual income of $286,999, deducting a vacancy of 4% and deducting expenses of 8% of the effective gross income and using a cap rate of 6% indicates a value of $4,224,622, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $3,590,929. PAO's just value is $3,539,917 or $691.00/sf. 2025-00164 Page 4 of 7 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 114 page report containing the 2025 tax year statutory and cost of sales package. The report contains Florida Statues that govern the Value Adjustment Board process, valuation process as well as consideration of FS 193.011 (8), known as cost of sales. PET presented a report containing 70-pages and consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, summary of salient facts, property record cards, building sketch, location map and photograph of subject. PET provided the Cost Approach and included a cost breakdown of the building and support for the costs from related pages for Fast Food Restaurants from Marshall Valuation a cost manual. PET provided the Income Approach based on Market rents from Costar in the Naples area, with a detail sheet on each rent comparable. PET provided support for a cap rate from national surveys. PET provided excerpts from the International Association of Assessing officers (IAAO) on rental units of comparison for types on Income -Producing Properties and excerpts from The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines adopted 11/22-Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Administration Program. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach. PET developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Building cost new is estimated at $1,706,621 and includes entrepreneurial profit of 8% and soft costs at 10% of cost new. The depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,655,422, PET added the assessed land value of $2,088,529 (which includes the 15% cost of sales added). The total value by the Cost Approach is $3,743,952, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $3,180,000 or $621.00/sf. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 13 restaurant rents, throughout Florida, that date from July 2022 to January 2025. The rents range from $23.00/sf to $44.00/sf triple net, with an average rent of $37.00/sf and a median of $3 8.00/sf. PET estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf triple net on 5,121-sf for a gross income of $230,445. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% for subject or $11,522. The effective gross income (EGI) is $218,923. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 7% of EGI or $15,325 and reserves at 1 % of EGI or $1,280. Net operating income is $202,318. 2025-00164 Page 5 of 7 PET provided cap rates from national surveys PCW at 6.25% to 9% for 1st Q 2025, Boulder Group net lease casual dining has cap rates for a 16-20 year lease at 6.1 % and for a 5 year or under term at 7.40%, Viewpoint has retail centers in Naples at 6.5%-6.75%. PET estimated a cap rate of 6.00% PET capitalized the NOI of $218,923 at 6.00% for an estimated value of $3,371,965, less 15% COS indicates a value of $2,866,170 or $560.00/sf. PET requested a value of $2,870,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the differenc good or average quality used; also, PAO profit on the building only. PET used the from market sales. PET had no rebuttal. e in the cost approach is primarily based on the adds profit on land and building, PET added assessed land value, PAO used a value derived Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET provided the Cost and Income Approaches. Some of PET's asking rents in the Income Approach appear dated and not reflective of current rents, also, the rents appear to be of buildings formerly occupied by fast food restaurants, this could indicate these restaurants were not successful at these locations and are not comparable to the subject location at a busy intersection. If PAO's market derived land value of $2,662,875 is added to PET's cost of $1,655,422 the value is $4,318,297, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $3,670,552, which is higher than the just value of $3,539,917. 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 2025-00164: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00 ] 64 Page 6 of 7 of correctness by proving that 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00 ] 64 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00166 Parcel ID 77020006800 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 2016 TRADE CENTERWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,091,660.00 3,091,660.00 3,091,660.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,091,660.00 3,091,660.00 3,091,660.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,091,660.00 3,091,660.00 3,091,660.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/13/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00166 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00166: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Christopher DelPo, MAI while the Petitioner, was represented by Deneen Maly of First Pointe Advisors who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $3,091,660. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is an improved Office Warehouse building located at 2016 Trade Center Way, Naples, Florida 34109. Subject site improvements include 17,640 SF Class C warehouse building in Average condition. The subject was built in 1991 with a land area of 56,800 SF or 1.30 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $4,586,400 and Income Approach of $4,334,736. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $4,586,400. The Just Market Assessed Value is $3,091,660 which is 67.4% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on ten comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $202 to $403 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $260 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $4,586,400. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the gross potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $18.00 PSF with vacancy of 3.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 5% exclusive of RE taxes for the subject property. Next, the nonloaded capitalization rate was provided at 6.75% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary 2025-00 ] 66 Page 2 of 4 indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $4,334,736. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the two approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these two value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $4,586,400. The Petitioner provided an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an income approach only. The income approach concluded to a market rent of $20.00 PSF Gross. Four comparable leases were presented in the immediate market area. Vacancy and collection was estimated at 5.0%, operating expenses a 22% and a cap rate of 9.2% indicating a value of $2,850,526. The Petitioner noted the 15% cost of sale was built into the cap rate. Upon cross examination the property appraiser noted that the petitioner did not provide adequate support for the concluded market rental rate or the estimated cap rate. The Property Appraiser also noted a Sales Comparison Approach was not considered. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser also provided the Level of Assessment Addendum supporting the market conditions utilized within the valuation analysis. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00166: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. 2025-00 ] 66 Page 3 of 4 Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00 ] 66 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00167 Parcel ID 77020001708 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 1959 TRADE CENTERWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,514,993.00 1,514,993.00 1,514,993.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,514,993.00 1,514,993.00 1,514,993.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,514,993.00 1,514,993.00 1,514,993.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/13/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00167 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00167: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Christopher DelPo, MAI while the Petitioner, was represented by Deneen Maly of First Pointe Advisors who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $1,514,993. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is an improved Office Warehouse building located at 1959 Trade Center Way, Naples, Florida 34109. Subject site improvements include 8,400 SF Class C warehouse building in Average condition. The subject was built in 2002 with a land area of 27,000 SF or 0.62 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $2,184,000 and Income Approach of $2,064,160. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $2,184,000. The Just Market Assessed Value is $1,514,993 which is 69.4% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on ten comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $202 to $403 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $260 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $2,184,000. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the gross potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $18.00 PSF with vacancy of 3.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 5% exclusive of RE taxes for the subject property. Next, the nonloaded capitalization rate was provided at 6.75% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary 2025-00167 Page 2 of 4 indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $2,064,160. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the two approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these two value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $2,184,000. The Petitioner provided an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an income approach only. The income approach concluded to a market rent of $20.00 PSF Gross. Four comparable leases were presented in the immediate market area. Vacancy and collection was estimated at 5.0%, operating expenses a 22% and a cap rate of 9.2% indicating a value of $1,360,000. The Petitioner noted the 15% cost of sale was built into the cap rate. Upon cross examination the property appraiser noted that the petitioner did not provide adequate support for the concluded market rental rate or the estimated cap rate. The Property Appraiser also noted a Sales Comparison Approach was not considered. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser also provided the Level of Assessment Addendum supporting the market conditions utilized within the valuation analysis. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00167: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. 2025-00167 Page 3 of 4 Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00 ] 67 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00168 Parcel ID 77020001601 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 1939 TRADE CENTERWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,417,012.00 1,417,012.00 1,417,012.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,417,012.00 1,417,012.00 1,417,012.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,417,012.00 1,417,012.00 1,417,012.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/13/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00168 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00168: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Christopher DelPo, MAI while the Petitioner, was represented by Deneen Maly of First Pointe Advisors who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $1,417,012. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is an improved Office Warehouse building located at 1939 Trade Center Way, Naples, Florida 34109. Subject site improvements include 7,672 SF Class C warehouse building in Average condition. The subject was built in 2006 with a land area of 27,000 SF or 0.62 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,994,720 and Income Approach of $1,885,266. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,994,720. The Just Market Assessed Value is $1,417,012 which is 67.4% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on ten comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $202 to $403 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $260 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,994,720. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the gross potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $18.00 PSF with vacancy of 3.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 5% exclusive of RE taxes for the subject property. Next, the nonloaded capitalization rate was provided at 6.75% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary 2025-00 ] 68 Page 2 of 4 indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,885,266. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the two approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these two value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $1,994,720. The Petitioner provided an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an income approach only. The income approach concluded to a market rent of $20.00 PSF Gross. Four comparable leases were presented in the immediate market area. Vacancy and collection was estimated at 5.0%, operating expenses a 22% and a cap rate of 9.2% indicating a value of $1,250,000. The Petitioner noted the 15% cost of sale was built into the cap rate. Upon cross examination the property appraiser noted that the petitioner did not provide adequate support for the concluded market rental rate or the estimated cap rate. The Property Appraiser also noted a Sales Comparison Approach was not considered. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser also provided the Level of Assessment Addendum supporting the market conditions utilized within the valuation analysis. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00168: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. 2025-00 ] 68 Page 3 of 4 Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00 ] 68 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00189 Parcel ID 66679090951 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 408 DOCKSIDEDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 8,264,659.00 8,264,659.00 8,264,659.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,264,659.00 8,264,659.00 8,264,659.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,264,659.00 8,264,659.00 8,264,659.00 *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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 02/20/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/23/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00189 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00189: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, 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 petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $8,264,659. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00189: 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.]. 2025-00189 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00190 Parcel ID 66679090906 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,723,981.00 2,723,981.00 2,723,981.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,366,853.00 1,366,853.00 1,366,853.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,366,853.00 1,366,853.00 1,366,853.00 *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 02/20/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/23/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00190 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00190: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, 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 petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $21723,981. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00190: 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.]. 2025-00 ] 90 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00191 Parcel ID 66679090854 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 410 DOCKSIDEDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 10,570,654.00 10,570,654.00 10,570,654.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,484,369.00 6,484,369.00 6,484,369.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,484,369.00 6,484,369.00 6,484,369.00 *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 02/20/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/23/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00191 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00191: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, 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 petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $101570,654. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00 ] 9 ] Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00202 Parcel ID 41827680002 Petitioner name PAIR, NICHOLAS G, MAUREEN CAMACHC Property 5140 HICKORY WOODDR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34119 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 875,298.00 875,298.00 875,298.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 875,298.00 875,298.00 875,298.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 875,298.00 875,298.00 875,298.00 *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 10/23/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/24/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00202 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00202: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were Nicholas Pair and Maureen Camacho, owners of the property and Jeremy Boone a consultant for the owners. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $875,298. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling. The base building area is 2,215-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,536-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 2.27 acres. The property was built in 1996, with an effective age of 2011. The property sold February 24, 2025 for $780,000-the sale is outside the valuation date of 1 / 1 /2025. The property is located at 5140 Hickory Wood Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00202 Page 2 of 5 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 36 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for the history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 two vacant land sales and 4 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to January 2025. The lots range in size from 1.59 acres to 2.73 acres. The sales range in value from $181,510.81/acre to $330,713.66/acre. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and for cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $235,287/acre x 2.27 acres = $534,102. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $47,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $355,468; the land value is estimated at $534,102 for a total cost of $936,570. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2024 to January 2025. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,724-sf to 2,521-sf and adjusted building size of 2,176-sf to 3,158-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 1.59 to 2.58 acres. The buildings have an effective age from 1989 to 2003. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 0-4%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $316.00 to $368.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $347.00/sf and a median of $352.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $352.00/sf of building area including land on 2,536-sf or $894,000 rounded. 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 2025-00202 Page 3 of 5 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET's evidence consisted of a 21-page report, consisting of comparative sales in chart form, with photographs and details of each sale. PET provided the settlement statement for subject sale in February 2025(outside the date of value of l/l/2025). PET provided an informal wetland determination summary on the subject property with photographs of the wetlands. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 5 sales in subject neighborhood that sold from February 2024 to September 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,328-sf to 2,157-sf ; the land size ranges from 1.14 acres to 2.27 acres. The sales sold in the range of $481,000 to $1,024,000, with an average of $669,800. PET estimated the value of the subject at $551.000. PET indicated the subject has approximately 1.40 acres of wetlands leaving .77 acres of buildable land. Mr. Boone, consultant for the owners, indicated the timing and permits needed to develop wetlands is costly. PET enquired if PAO took the wetlands into consideration in their valuation. As rebuttal, PAO indicated most sales in subject neighborhood have wetland issues and the wetlands were taken into consideration in the valuation of subject property. PAO noted that the subject has a building in the wetlands area that is being used by PET and this building was given a value; PAO indicated it is not uncommon for outbuildings to be built on wetlands in this area. PAO indicated PET's sale # 1 was a disqualified sale, and sales # 2 # 5 sold in 2025 after the date of valuation of 1/l/2025. As rebuttal, PET addressed the wetland issue on the subject as well as all the adjustments made to PAO's analysis of the sales. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. PET provided two qualified sales and made no adjustments for the difference in building and land size or extra features as well as age and condition. 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 2025-00202: 2025-00202 Page 4 of 5 Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00202 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00204 Parcel ID 74137000006 Petitioner name GIRO, EDUARDO FELIZ, SARA BEATRIZ G Property 601 SEAVIEW CT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 494,832.00 494,832.00 460,955.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 494,832.00 494,832.00 460,955.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 494,832.00 494,832.00 460,955.00 *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 12/05/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00204 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00204: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Edwardo Giro, owner of the subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $4941832. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium, located on the 2nd floor (end unit), with water view of Clam Bay and direct access to Marco Island Beach. The unit is located in South Sea East Condominium Apartments of Marco Island. The development consists of three multi -level buildings and 13 villas with a total of 280 units. The unit has an area of 1,112-sf. The unit sold in October 2024 for $550,000. The property was built in 1979. The property is located at 601 Seaview Court # C-211, Marco Island Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 2025-00204 Page 2 of 5 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 48 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, general and property information, Limiting Conditions and Assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definition, scope of appraisal, trim notice, deed of the property with legal description, aerial and location maps, site plan, floor plan and subject photographs. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with unit location in the building, and location map of the site and the sales. PAO included the listing for the subject, prior to the sale. PAO included F.S. 689.261-Sale of residential property; disclosure of ad valorem taxes to prospective purchaser. F.S. 193.1554- and F.S. 193.155. PAO included excerpts of the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, adopted in 2002 from the Florida Department of Revenue and Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines - property tax oversight. 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 presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved unit sales, three -unit sales in subject building C and one sale in the adjoining sister building B. Sales # 1 is the sale of the subject unit, all other sales are not end units. The building was built in 1979. The units range in size from 964-sf to 1,112-sf. PAO made adjustments for time of sale at 0.70%/month or a minus adjustment of -3% to -6%; PAO adjusted for cost of sale at -15%. PAO indicated an end unit adjustment of +$6,000. PAO did not adjust the non -end units. The adjusted sales range from $415.00/sf to $535.00/sf with a mean of all the sales at $478.00 and the median is $482.00/sf. PAO estimated a value of $482.00/ sf for the subject or $535,984. PAO provided 2 sales of units that sold from April 2025 to May 2025; range in size from 964-sf to 1,112-sf and sold in the range of $450.00/sf(end unit) to $532.00/sf. PAO did not place emphasis on the 2025 sales, nor did Special Magistrate. PAO did not establish the presumption of correctness. PAO failed to take into consideration the condition of the subject unit, FS 193.011 (6). PET presented a report containing 27-pages and consisted of a cover page, comparable sales chart, subject property record and interior photographs of subject. PET included the property record card and interior photographs for each comparable sale. PET provided 11-pages of rebuttal evidence, which consisted of interior photographs of PAO's sales #2 to #4 and one of PAO's 2025 sale. 2025-00204 Page 3 of 5 PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject unit was updated approximately 10 years ago with a new kitchen. The vanities in bathrooms are original and the wall paper in the bathrooms is dated. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 8 improved unit sale (including the sale of the subject), located in the subject and adjoining buildings A and B. The units sold from September 2024 to May 2025; all units are all two bed/two bath. The units sold at an average price of $455,357, less the cost of sales of -15% indicates an average sale price of $387,054. PET provided the sale of the subject and three other sales that occurred in 2024, the remaining three sales sold in 2025. PET is requesting a value of $387,054. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject is an end unit with water views. Most of PET's sales are back units, not end units. Four of PET's sales sold in 2025 after the date of value of 1/l/2025. Of PET's 2024 sales, sale #2 is not a water view unit, Sales # 5 and 6 are disqualified sales. PAO indicated the sale of the subject makes market and is the best sale. As rebuttal, PET provided 11-pages of interior photographs of PAO's sales #2 to #4 and one of PAO's 2025 sale. PET indicated PAO does not take into consideration the condition of subject unit, the subject unit was updated about 10 years ago. PET indicated PAO's sales 1,2 and 3 have been remodeled and are in better condition than the subject and sold for more money, PAO did not adjust for the condition of the unit. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate sales, similar to the subject, in subject complex. PAO did not take into consideration the condition of the subject unit, PAO's sales are superior in condition to the subject. PET provided sales in the subject building as well as in the adjoining buildings. SM is of the opinion that the sale of the subject in October 2024 provides the best indication of value. PAO adjusted the subject sale for time of sale and cost of sales at $460,955. SM has revised the value to $460,955. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00204: 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 2025-00204 Page 4 of 5 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. The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PAO did not take into consideration the condition of the subject as compared to the sales provided. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $460,955. 2025-00204 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00225 Parcel ID 63045042565 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 14496 STILLWATERWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34114 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 869,163.00 869,163.00 869,163.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 869,163.00 869,163.00 869,163.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 869,163.00 869,163.00 869,163.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/27/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/28/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00225 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00225: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Jenny Blaje Plock, CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioners were represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who were present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $869,163. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 14496 Stillwater Way, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a good quality one-story single-family residence with a patio. The subject was built in 2020 and has a base area of 2,267 square feet and 2,794 adjusted square feet on a 9,148 square foot lot. The property last sold on October 9, 2024 for $825,000. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $898,381 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $861,774 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $869,163. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the extraction method of the improved sales. The sales indicated a land value of $493,336 or $53.93 PSF for the subject's 9,148 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $366,045 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $391000. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $898,381. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $304 PSF to $325 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $308 per square foot 2025-00225 Page 2 of 3 which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $862,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided information on five improved sales that transpired from February of 2024 to November of 2024. The sale ranged from $750,000 to $900,000 prior to adjustments and $673,000 to $734,550 after adjustments. The Petitioner indicated a net proceeds from a hypothetical sale of the property at $704,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that the subject sale utilized in the analysis and another comparable sale considered by the Petitioner were disqualified sales and two of the other sales were utilized by the Property Appraiser in there analysis. The Property Appraiser also noted that land differences was adjusted at $5 PSF with no support. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00225: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00225 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00229 Parcel ID 57808560009 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 1361 QUINTARACT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 11,530,756.00 11,138,711.00 11,138,711.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 11,435,681.00 11,138,711.00 11,138,711.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 11,435,681.00 11,138,711.00 11,138,711.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/27/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/28/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00229 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00229: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Jenny Blaje Plock, CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioners were represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who were present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $11,13 8, 711. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 1361 Quintara Court, Marco Island, Florida. Subject site improvements include a High Value IV quality two-story single-family residence with a pool area and dock. The subject was built in 2015 and has a base area of 5,667 square feet and 8,284 adjusted square feet on a 26,136 square foot lot. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $11,718,256 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $111631,107 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $11,13 8,711. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the extraction method of the improved sales and 3 land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $4,547,716 or $174 PSF for the subject's 26,136 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $6,695,540 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $475,000. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $11,718,256. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $1,072 PSF to $1,197 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $1,143 per square 2025-00229 Page 2 of 4 foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $11,631,107. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided information on six improved sales that transpired from July of 2023 to February of 2025. The sale ranged from $6,250,000 to $10,100,000 prior to adjustments and $6,328,500 to $6,808,263 after adjustments. The Petitioner indicated a net proceeds from a hypothetical sale of the property at $6,500,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted the following: The Petitioner applies an overstated market conditions adjustment of -1 % per month. The Petitioner understates the subjects open water frontage as a canal view and makes unsupported adjustments for this feature. The Petitioner and Property Appraiser share no sales in common as the Petitioner purposely selected inferiorly located comparable sales. The Petitioner applied a lot size adjustment of $20 PSF with no support. In cross examination, the Petitioner noted that the Property Appraiser did not bracket the subject site size, living area or quality and this has skewed the data. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00229: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. 2025-00229 Page 3 of 4 Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00229 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00235 Parcel ID 27589000009 Petitioner name WILSON, PETER J KATHRYN P Property 354 SEABEEAVE The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34108 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 5,454,268.00 5,454,268.00 5,454,268.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,590,582.00 4,590,582.00 4,590,582.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,539,860.00 4,539,860.00 4,539,860.00 *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 11/04/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00235 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00235: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were Peter and Kathryn Wilson, owners of subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $5,454,268. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a canal waterfront, three-story single-family dwelling, with pool and dock, located in the Conner's Vanderbilt subdivision. The base building area is 2,661-sf , the under -air area is 4,418-sf, with an adjusted building size of 6,069-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 10,137-s£ The property was built in 2023, with an effective age of 2023. The property is located at 354 Seabee Avenue, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, 2025-00235 Page 2 of 5 in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 3 land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to May 2024. The lots range in size from 10,137-sf to 13,481-sf. The sales range in value from $169.02/sf to $256.49/sf. PAO deducted the cost of sales at -15 %. PAO reconciled the land value at $174.15/sf x 10,137-sf = $117651372. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $313,000 and impact fees are estimated at $37,702; depreciated building cost is estimated at $4,136,458 the land value is estimated at $1,765,372 for a total cost of $6,252,532. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from May 2024 to November 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 3,326-sf to 5,334-sf and adjusted building size of 3,876-sf to 6,334-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 9,600-sf to 9,760-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2010 to 2014. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 to -3%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $897.00/sf to $1,050.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $969.00/sf and a median of $965.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $965.00/sf of building area including land on 6,069-sf or $5,858,000 rounded. 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. 2025-00235 Page 3 of 5 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET's evidence consisted of a 44-page report, and included a cover letter, a list of neighboring properties, photographs of the subject and neighboring properties, a chart of sales (2025 sales) in neighborhood, with photographs of the sales. PET provided an appraisal of subject property dated 9/27/2022 with a value based on hurricane damage and a value without damage. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the just value in 2024 was not contested due to delays in receiving the trim notice. PAO indicated each year stands alone and an adjustment to a prior year just value is not viable. PET indicated the house was built in 2023 at a cost of $3,700,000 about $600,000 over budget due to hurricane damage, which increased the cost. PET provided 5 sales that sold from February 2025 to September 2025 and range in building size from 3,523-sf to 5,331-s£ These properties were built from 1997 to 2013 and sold from $3,000,000 to $4,550,000 with an average of $3,582,000. PET made no adjustments for difference in size or quality. PET provided the just value of improvements only on neighboring properties to the subject to indicate the difference from the subject. PET did not provide the land value for these properties. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the just value is based on comparable sales of similar properties that recently sold and not the just value of neighboring property improvement values. PET indicated the land value is acceptable but the improvement value is high. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. PET is in agreement with PAO's land value, assuming PET's actual costs at $3,700,000 and adding PAO's land value of $1,765,372, the indicated value is $5,464,372, which is higher than the current just value of $5,454,268. Also, PET's appraisal with a date of value of 9/27/2022 indicates a value for the subject of $7,000,000, this value would be slightly less as of date of value of 1/l/2025. PET compared the improvement value of adjoining properties and not the total value of the property. The value of the entire property is the value to be determined and not the value of the components, also, the just value of neighboring properties that have not recently sold is not an acceptable method of determining the just value for the subject property. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or 2025-00235 Page 4 of 5 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00235: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00235 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00236 Parcel ID 22510009809 Petitioner name SUSAN D FAWCETT REV TRUST Property 258 AUDUBON BLVD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 6,124,504.00 6,124,504.00 6,124,504.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,617,386.00 5,617,386.00 5,617,386.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,566,664.00 5,566,664.00 5,566,664.00 *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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00236 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00236: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Robert Epperson. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $6,124,504. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00236: 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.]. 2025-00236 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00237 Parcel ID 25500000954 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LLC Property 5082 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address HALLANDALE BEACH, FL 33009 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,501,201.00 2,501,201.00 2,501,201.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,374,650.00 2,374,650.00 2,374,650.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,374,650.00 2,374,650.00 2,374,650.00 *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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00237 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00237: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Mark Mittleman of Property Tax Consultants LLC who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $2,501,201. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 5082 Airport Rd N, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 4,909 SF Class C Retail Restaurant built in 1995. The subject land area is 29,597 SF. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information for each address and folio number which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. The analysis included a Cost Approach with supporting details, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value via the Cost Approach of $2,854,995, Sales Comparison Approach of $3,043,580 and Income Approach of $3,072,493. The Just Market Assessed Value is $2,501,201 which is 82% of the concluded market value of $3,058,036 in the PAO evidence. The land value was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $1,775,820 or $60 PSF for the subject's 29,597 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $528,721, plus impact fees of $320,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $230,454 (10%). A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $2,854,995. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on ten comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $474 to $1,055 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $620 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $3,043,580. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $45.00 PSF NNN with vacancy of 4.0% which is 2025-00237 Page 2 of 4 reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.35% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $3,072,493. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $3,058,036. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included a Sales Analysis Section and an Income Analysis Section. Sales Analysis included three comparable properties from the Naples area. The sales range from $234 PSF to $315 PSF with sale dates from 8/1/2024 to 12/15/2023. A value indication was not provided. The income approach was provided with rent projected at $45 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0%. Rents were estimated via costar comparables from Southwest Florida. Effective operating expenses were estimated at 10% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 8.5%. Cap Rate support was not provided. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $2,285,868 less 15% cost of sale for an indication of $1,942,988. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00237: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property 2025-00237 Page 3 of 4 Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00237 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00239 Parcel ID 00169160001 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LLC Property 8901 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34108 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,823,775.00 2,823,775.00 2,823,775.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,823,775.00 2,823,775.00 2,823,775.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,823,775.00 2,823,775.00 2,823,775.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00239 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00239: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Mark Mittleman of Property Tax Consultants LLC who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $2,823,775. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 8901 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 912 SF Class C C-Store in good condition. The subject was built in 1987 with a land area of 1.04 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information for each address and folio number which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. The analysis included an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value via the Income Approach of $3,446,471. The Just Market Assessed Value is $2,823,775 which is 82% of the concluded market value of $3,446,471 in the PAO evidence. The land value was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $2,936,960 or $65 PSF for the subject's 45,184 square feet. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $4.75 PSF for the subjects 45,184 square feet of land area with vacancy of 4.0%. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 5.50% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $3,446,471. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included a Land Sales Analysis and an Improved Sales Analysis Section. The Land Sales Analysis included four land sales from Collier County. The land sales 2025-00239 Page 2 of 3 range from $16.04 PSF to $48.50 PSF with sale dates from 10/31/2023 to 4/3/2025. The Improved Sales Analysis included two comparable properties from Sarasota County area. The improved sales range from $88.98 PSF to $121.28 PSF of land area with sale dates from 12/20/2023 to 2/28/2024. A value conclusion was not provided. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Income Approach to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00239: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00239 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00241 Parcel ID 69220000766 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LLC Property 8665 BAY COLONYDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34108 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 6,142,500.00 6,142,500.00 5,420,610.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,088,094.00 6,088,094.00 5,420,610.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,088,094.00 6,088,094.00 5,420,610.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision 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 12/02/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00241 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00241: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Mark Mittleman from Property Tax Consultants, LLC., agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $6,142,500. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium, located in Bay Colony in the Pelican Bay subdivision. The building is a high-rise with 75 units on 22 floors, located near the Ritz Carlton hotel and is on the Gulf of Mexico. The unit has an area of 3,390-sf and is located on the 1 lth floor. The property was built in 1996. The property is located at 8665 Bay Colony Drive # 1103, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. 2025-00241 Page 2 of 4 PAO presented a report containing 49 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, general and property information, Limiting Conditions and Assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definition, scope of appraisal, trim notice, deed of the property with legal description, aerial and location maps, site plan, floor plan and subject photographs. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with floor plan and unit location in the building, and exterior photographs of each sale. PAO included F.S. 689.261-Sale of residential property; disclosure of ad valorem taxes to prospective purchaser. F.S. 193.1554- and F.S. 193.155. PAO included excerpts of the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, adopted in 2002 from the Florida Department of Revenue and Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines- property tax oversight. 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 presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved unit sales, in subject complex (Remington Bay Colony) and Brighton at Bay Colony(a nearby building). The sales occurred from February 2024 to December 2024. The building was built in 1996. The units range in size from 3,010-sf to 3,450-sf. PAO made adjustments for time of sale at 0.70%/month or a minus adjustment of 0% to 6%; PAO adjusted for cost of sale at -15%. The adjusted sales range from $1,506.00/sf to $2,142.00/sf with a mean of all the sales at $1,599.00 and the median is $1,599.00/sf. Sale # 1 and 2 are in subject building, sale # 1 is one floor above the subject and in similar condition to the subject, and is adjusted at $1,716/sf, sale # 2 is an end unit and sold for an adjusted price of $2,142/sf. PAO estimated a value of $1,599/sf on 3,390-sf for the subject or $51420,610 which is lower than the just value of $6,142,500. 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 11-pages and consisted of a cover page, subject property record and tax card, aerial photograph of subject, the property record card for one sale provided and DR-493 form. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 1 improved unit sale located in the subject complex on the 12th floor, the subject is on the 1 lth floor. This sale 2025-00241 Page 3 of 4 is shared with PAO's sale # 1. The unit has 3,390-sf, similar to the subject, and sold April 2024 for $7,250,000 or $2,139/sf unadjusted. PAO adjusted this sale at $1,716/sf for time of sale and cost of sales (-15%). PAO had no rebuttal PET indicated PAO's sale # 2 is a corner unit. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO value at $5,420,610 is lower than the just value of $6,142,500 and PET placed emphasis on PAO's sale # 1 when adjusted by PAO is at $1,716/sf, which is higher than the median price of $1,599, which PAO estimated the value at. SM has accepted PAO's value of $5,420,610. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00241: 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. PAO's value of $5,420,610 is lower than the just value of $6,142,500. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $5,420,610. 2025-00241 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00244 Parcel ID 22493000080 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LLC Property 15485 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 9,421,650.00 9,421,650.00 9,421,650.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,849,900.00 7,849,900.00 7,849,900.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,849,900.00 7,849,900.00 7,849,900.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00244 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00244: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Mark Mittleman of Property Tax Consultants LLC who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 15485 Tamiami Trail N, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 63,752 SF Class C Retail Store built in 1999. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information for each address and folio number which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. The analysis included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value via the Cost Approach of $16,689,548, Sales Comparison Approach of $15,935,500 and Income Approach of $15,312,766. The Just Market Assessed Value is $9,421,650 which is 60% of the concluded market value of $15,624,133 in the PAO evidence. The land value was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $7,318,160 or $40 PSF for the subject's 182,954 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $7,625,065, plus impact fees of $252,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $1,494,322 (10%). A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $16,689,548. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on three comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $216 to $440 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $250 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $15,935,500. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $17.00 PSF NNN with vacancy of 4.0% which is 2025-00244 Page 2 of 4 reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.25% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $15,312,766. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $15,624,133. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included a Sales Analysis Section and an Income Analysis Section. Sales Analysis included three comparable properties all from the Lee County area. The sales range from $123.53 PSF to $140.21 PSF with sale dates from 3/31/2023 to 12/20/2024. The Petitioner did not provide a value opinion. The income approach was provided with rent projected at $12 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0%. Rents were estimated via costar comparables from the Lee County area. Effective operating expenses were estimated at 10% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 7.0%. No Cap Rate support was provided. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $9,238,690 less 15% cost of sale for an indication of $7,852,886. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00244: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the 2025-00244 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00244 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00246 Parcel ID 21961000351 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LLC Property 2505 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 10,118,773.00 10,118,773.00 10,118,773.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,114,014.00 10,114,014.00 10,114,014.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,114,014.00 10,114,014.00 10,114,014.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00246 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00246: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Mark Mittleman of Property Tax Consultants LLC who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $10,118,773. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 2505 Pine Ridge Rd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 43,964 SF Class C Retail Store in good condition. The subject was built in 1996 with a land area of 3.86 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information for each address and folio number which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. The analysis included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value via the Cost Approach of $16,463,948, Sales Comparison Approach of $13,189,200 and Income Approach of $12,425,282. The Just Market Assessed Value is $10,118,773 which is 77% of the concluded market value of $13,189,200 in the PAO evidence. The land value was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $9,247,755 or $55 PSF for the subject's 168,141 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $5,561,289, plus impact fees of $174,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $1,480,904 (10%). A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $16,463,948. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on three comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $216 to $440 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $275 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $131189,200. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser 2025-00246 Page 2 of 4 considered a market NNN rent of $20.00 PSF NNN with vacancy of 4.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.25% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $12,425,282. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $13,189,200. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included a Sales Analysis Section and an Income Analysis Section. Sales Analysis included one land listing at $28.69 PSF and five comparable properties from the Lee and Collier County area. The improved sales range from $124.25 PSF to $229.68 PSF with sale dates from 12/26/2023 to 5/12/2025. The income approach was provided with rent projected at $15 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0%. Rents were estimated via costar comparables from the Bonita Springs area. Effective operating expenses were estimated at 10% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.5%. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $8,674,435 ($197 PSF) less 15% cost of sale for an indication of $7,373,270. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00246: Florida law allows 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. 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 2025-00246 Page 3 of 4 Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00246 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00248 Parcel ID 74136600009 Petitioner name GIRO, EDUARDO FELIX, SARA BEATRIZ G Property 601 SEAVIEW CT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 454,274.00 454,274.00 403,360.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 419,740.00 419,740.00 403,360.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 419,740.00 419,740.00 403,360.00 *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 12/05/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00248 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00248: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Edwardo Giro, owner of the subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $454,274. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium, located on the 2nd floor (interior unit) with water views and direct access to Marco Island Beach. The unit is located in South Sea East Condominium Apartments of Marco Island. The development consists of three multi -level buildings and 13 villas with a total of 280 units. The unit has an area of 1,054-sf. The unit sold in May 2025 (after the date of value of 1/l/25) for $4201000. PAO indicated this was an estate sale and is disqualified. The property was built in 1979. The property is located at 601 Seaview Court # C-201, Marco Island Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00248 Page 2 of 5 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 46 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, general and property information, Limiting Conditions and Assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definition, scope of appraisal, trim notice, deed of the property with legal description, aerial and location maps, site plan, floor plan and subject photographs. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with unit location in the building, and location map of the site and the sales. PAO included the listing for the subject, prior to the sale. PAO included F.S. 689.261-Sale of residential property; disclosure of ad valorem taxes to prospective purchaser. F.S. 193.1554- and F.S. 193.155. PAO included excerpts of the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, adopted in 2002 from the Florida Department of Revenue and Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines - property tax oversight. 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 presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 3 improved unit sales, two - unit sales in subject building C and one sale in the adjoining sister building A. The building was built in 1979. The units are all the same size as the subject at 1,054-sf. PAO made adjustments for time of sale at 0.70%/month or a minus adjustment of -0% to -6%; PAO adjusted for cost of sale at -15%. PAO indicated the condition of the unit was not taken into consideration and that the unit has not been renovated and lacked flooring in the bedrooms. PAO does not indicate if the comparable sales have been renovated. The adjusted sales range from $403.00/sf to $524.00/sf with a mean of all the sales at $473.00 and the median is $491.00/sf. PAO estimated a value of $491.00/sf for the subject or $517,514. PAO provided 7 sales of units that sold from April 2025 to May 2025, for trending purposes; the units range in size from 1,074-sf to 1,054-sf and sold in the range of $372.00/sf(end unit and estate sale) to $646.00/sf. PAO made no adjustments to these sales. PAO did not place emphasis on the 2025 sales, nor did Special Magistrate. PAO did not establish the presumption of correctness. PAO failed to take into consideration the condition of the subject unit, FS 193.011 (6). PET presented a report containing 25-pages and consisted of a cover page, comparable sales chart, subject property record and interior photographs of subject. PET included the property record card and interior photographs for each comparable sale. PET provided 22 pages which consists of cost proposals to update the subject that range 2025-00248 Page 3 of 5 from $40,000 to $95,000. PET provided 11-pages of rebuttal evidence, which consisted of interior photographs of PAO's sales and some of PAO's 2025 sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject unit has not been updated and is in original condition. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 7 improved unit sale (including the sale of the subject in May 2025), located in the subject and adjoining buildings A and B. The units sold from September 2024 to May 2025; all units are all two bed/two bath. The units sold at an average price of $450,833, less the cost of sales of -15 % indicates an average sale price of $3 83,208 . PET provided three sales that occurred in 2024, the remaining three sales sold in 2025. PET is requesting a value of $383,208. As rebuttal, PAO indicated 4 of PET's sales sold in 2025 after the date of value of 1/l/2025. PET's 2024 sales # 5 and 6 are disqualified sales. As rebuttal, PET provided 11-pages which consisted of interior photographs of PAO's sales #2 to #4 and one of PAO's 2025 sale. PET indicated PAO's sale # 1 which sold for $645,000 in April 2024 is in better condition and, has been remodeled. PAO's Sale # 2 is a shared sale with PET, that sold for $500,000 in December 2024; this unit is in better condition than the subject. PAO's sale # 3 sold for $650,000 in December 2024, this unit has been remodeled and is in better condition than the subject. PAO did not adjust for the condition of the unit. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate sales, similar to the subject, in subject complex. PAO did not take into consideration the condition of the subject unit, PAO's sales are superior in condition to the subject. PET provided one shared sale with PAO and two sales from 2024 which PAO indicated are disqualified sales. SM did not consider sales from 2025. PET provided cost of renovations for the subject unit kitchen at $40,000 to $55,000 and renovations for the kitchen and bathrooms at $95,000. New flooring in bedrooms at $6,000. SM has adjusted PAO's adjusted sales(for time and COS) for condition, based on PET's evidence of estimated cost of renovations. All of PAO's sales are superior in condition to the subject. Following is SM's adjusted sales. PAO's Sale Size Time & COS Condition Adjusted Adj Price/ Number SF Adj Adj Price SF 1 1054 $517,578-$951000 $422,578 $400.93 2 1054 $425,000-$951000 $330,000 $313.09 3 1054 $552,500-$95,000 $457,500 $434.06 Average $382.69 2025-00248 Page 4 of 5 Median $400.93 $382.69 $4031359 SM has revised the value and applied the average price/sf at $382.69 for an indicated value of $403,359, rounded to $403,360. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00248: 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. The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PAO did not take into consideration the condition of the subject as compared to the sales provided. PAO did not establish the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $403,360. 2025-00248 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00249 Parcel ID 01831320000 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS Property 1795 GORDONDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 16,505,204.00 16,505,204.00 16,505,204.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,194,725.00 16,194,725.00 16,194,725.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,194,725.00 16,194,725.00 16,194,725.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/04/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00249 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00249: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. John McDonald, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $161505,204. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story, high quality, single-family dwelling, with pool area and cabana, located in the Aqualane Shores subdivision. The base building area is 4,411-sf with an under -air area of 6,951-sf and an adjusted building size of 7,570-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 20,350-s£ The property was built in 2024, with an effective age of 2024. The property was listed for sale in January 2024 for $21,995,000; the price has been reduced to $17,995,000 and the listing expired July 2025; the property did not sell. The property is located at 1795 Gordon Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in 2025-00249 Page 2 of 5 Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 36 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 3 vacant land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from July 2023 to May 2024. The lots range in size from 14,782-sf to 19,500-sf. The sales range in value from $344.42/sf to $427.25/sf. PAO adjusted the land sales by deducting the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $372.43/sf x 20,350-sf = $7,578,966. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $398,000 and impact fees are estimated at $35,973; depreciated building cost is estimated at $9,342,004 the land value is estimated at $7,578,966 for a total cost of $17,354,943. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from May 2023 to March 2025. The sales range in building size (under air) from 6,124-sf to 7,602-sf and adjusted building size of 6,639-sf to 8,120-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 15,000-sf to 18,500-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2022 to 2024. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -0 to -3%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $2,175.00/sf to $2,393.00/ sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $2,272.00/sf and a median of $2,287.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $2,287.00/sf of building area including land on 7,570-sf or $17,309,000 rounded. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment 2025-00249 Page 3 of 5 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 consisted of an 83-page report, and included a cover page, DR form 493, terms agreement and construction contract to build the subject, summary of building cost with date of payment. PET included a section of The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines from the Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Administration Program adopted November 26, 2002. PET also included and advisory memorandum from the Florida Department of Revenue on implementing the VAB uniform handling of cost of sale deductions. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject had been on the market for sale for 525 days and did not sell at $17,50000. PET agrees with PAO's land value at $7,578,966. PET provided the actual costs of the subject construction at $6,928,048 or $942.72/sf on 7,349-sf (construction started December 2021 and was complete April 2025, according to PET's cost summary). PET is of the opinion the value of the subject is $14,507,014 (PAO's land value and PET's building costs). As rebuttal, PAO indicated the cost is a part of the consideration of value, however actual sales support the market value; PAO indicated PET's costs started in late 2021 and do not reflect current costs, which weakens PET's cost estimate. PAO noted the value of the property is the entire property (land and building) and not a component of the property (land only which PET is in agreement with the value). PAO provided sales of similar properties that support the just value. As rebuttal, PET questioned PAO's large land, building and quality adjustments for sales # 2 and 3 which are smaller in building and land size. PAO indicated the adjustments were based on difference in size of the building and land and the quality of the subject is better than the sales. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach with support from the Cost Approach. PET's construction costs are not current costs and no profit is indicated; PET did not provided current improved sales, which exist in the neighborhood to support the cost approach. PAO's sales are current and in the neighborhood. PAO indicated Sales # 4 and 5 are not 2024 sales but provide a trend in values, no emphasis was placed on these sales. Sale # 1 is on the same street as the subject, is similar in land and building size with quality being slightly less than the subject. This sale has an adjusted price of $2,215/sf, when applied to the subject 7,570-sf indicates a value of $16,767,550, which 2025-00249 Page 4 of 5 is higher than the just value of $16,505,204. 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 2025-00249: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00249 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00260 Parcel ID 58055320004 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 549 SPINNAKER DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,262,906.00 1,260,340.00 1,260,340.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,262,906.00 1,260,340.00 1,260,340.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,262,906.00 1,260,340.00 1,260,340.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00260 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00260: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $1,260,340. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 549 Spinnaker Dr, Marco Island, Florida. Subject site improvements include a Good quality one-story single-family residence with a pool and dock. The subject was built in 1982 with an effective age of 1990 and has a base area of 1,956 square feet and 2,301 adjusted square feet on a 10,879.55 square foot lot. The property last sold on February 221 2022 for $1,610,000. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $1,384,199 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $11284,179 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,260,179. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the sales approach with four land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $1,064,643 or $97.86 PSF for the subject's 10,879.55 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $261,987 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $24,000 with impact fees of $33,570. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $1,384,199. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $520 PSF to $602 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $558 per square foot 2025-00260 Page 2 of 3 which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,284,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach and provided information on six improved properties. After time adjustments and cost of sale adjustments, the sales provided a value indication range from $802,438 to $994,725 and the Petitioner concluded at $850,000. In cross examination the Property Appraiser noted that land size was adjusted at $10 PSF in the sales approach. Furthermore, the Property Appraiser noted that two sales were disqualified, one sale was a tear down and one sale had significant upgrades after purchase. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00260: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00260 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00261 Parcel ID 57923080008 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 821 MAGNOLIACT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,334,719.00 3,334,719.00 3,334,719.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,053,147.00 3,053,147.00 3,053,147.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,053,147.00 3,053,147.00 3,053,147.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/19/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00261 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00261: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $3,334,719. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 821 Magnolia Ct, Marco Island, Florida. Subject site improvements include a High Value II quality one-story single-family residence with a pool and dock. The subject was built in 2015 with an effective age of 1990 and has a base area of 1,956 square feet and 2,301 adjusted square feet on a 11,183.50 square foot lot. The property last sold on March 16, 2022 for $3,490,000. The property is currently listed for sale at $4,095,000. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $3,967,160 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $3,714,937 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $3,334,719. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the sales approach with three land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $1,576,874 or $141.00 PSF for the subject's 11,183.50 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $2,272,286 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $118,000 with impact fees of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $3,967,160. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $992 PSF to $1,395 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $991 per square 2025-00261 Page 2 of 3 foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $3,763,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach and provided information on six improved properties. After time adjustments and cost of sale adjustments, the sales provided a value indication range from $2,509,120 to $2,993,760 and the Petitioner concluded at $2,622,000. In cross examination the Property Appraiser noted that land size was adjusted at $20 PSF in the sales approach. Furthermore, the Property Appraiser noted that all of the sales chosen are inferior comps. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00261: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00261 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00263 Parcel ID 56783360008 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 442 TARPONCT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,318,817.00 1,229,778.00 1,229,778.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 953,700.00 953,700.00 953,700.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 953,700.00 953,700.00 953,700.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/15/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00263 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00263: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $1,229,778. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 442 Tarpon Ct, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a Good quality one- story single-family residence with a patio and dock. The subject was built in 1970 with an effective age of 1990 and has a base area of 1,395 square feet and 1,623 adjusted square feet on a 11,306 square foot lot. The property last sold on April 4, 2023 for $1,020,000. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $1,324,878 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,230,234 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,229,778. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the sales approach with five land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $1,243,664 or $110 PSF for the subject's 11,306 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $42,644 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $51000. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $1,324,878. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $666 PSF to $828 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $758 per square foot 2025-00263 Page 2 of 3 which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,230,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach and provided information on six improved properties. After time adjustments and cost of sale adjustments, the sales provided a value indication range from $651,388 to $768,559 and the Petitioner concluded at $695,600. In cross examination the Property Appraiser noted that one sale is the subject property, two sales utilized by the Petitioner are disqualified sales and two sales are inferiorly located. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00263: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00263 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00264 Parcel ID 27587440001 Petitioner name FYHR, SVEN MAGNUS PAULA Property 359 SEAGULL AVE The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34108 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,789,905.00 2,858,900.00 2,858,900.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,776,995.00 2,776,995.00 2,776,995.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,776,995.00 2,776,995.00 2,776,995.00 *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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00264 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00264: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Ms. Maryanne Greger, and Mr. Steve Csaki. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Peter Fyhr, owners of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,858,900. The TRIM value has changed from $3,789,905. PAO described the property as a vacant residential single-family waterfront, corner lot, at the end of a finger canal. The subject is located in Conner's Vanderbilt subdivision. PAO indicated the lot was listed for sale, from March 2023 to January 2024, for $4,200,000, but did not sell. The land size is 14,294-sf. The property is located at 359 Seagull Avenue, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. 2025-00264 Page 2 of 4 PAO presented a report containing 28 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, and photographs of the subject. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided land sales, in chart form, with aerial photographs of each sale and a location map of the sales. PAO included the multiple listing history for the subject, and 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 Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of 4 waterfront, land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to December 2024. The lots range in size from 9,000-sf to 13,481-sf. PAO adjusted the sales for time of sale to the date of value of l/l/25 at 0% to -5%. PAO deducted for cost of sales at -15% and deducted the depreciated cost of the improvements(docks) to arrive at a land value. The range in adjusted sales is $169.00 to $273.00/sf, with a mean of $218.00/sf and a median of $215.00/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $215.00/sf x 14,294-sf = $3,078,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 7-page report. PET provided the trim notice for the subject and some of PAO's sales mentioned above, and the trim notice for the subject and two other properties; PET provided photographs of the subject street. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the center lots from the PAO's sales have a more expansive view than the subject, which is on the north side of the canal. PET indicated his property is the only property that increased in value as noted by the trim notices provided. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided the Sales Comparison approach, with land sales in the same neighborhood as the subject. PET provided the Trim notice for the subject and properties in neighborhood indicating his property is the only property that increased in value. PAO based the value of the subject on neighborhood sales and made appropriate adjustments to arrive at a value. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or 2025-00264 Page 3 of 4 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00264: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00264 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00266 Parcel ID 00384800007 Petitioner name THOMAS COOTS - PROPERTY VALUATIOI Property 3400 WESTVIEWDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,416,862.00 3,416,862.00 3,416,862.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,943,801.00 1,943,801.00 1,943,801.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,943,801.00 1,943,801.00 1,943,801.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00266 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00266: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Christopher DelPo, MAI while the Petitioner, was represented by Carson Vannote who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $3141602. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is an improved Office Warehouse building located at 3400 Westview Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Subject site improvements include 16,000 SF Class S&C warehouse building in Average condition. The subject was built in 1985 with a land area of 44,255 SF or 1.02 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $4,160,000 and Income Approach of $3,931,733. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $4,160,000. The Just Market Assessed Value is $3,416,862 which is 82% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on ten comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $202 to $403 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $260 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $4,160,000. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the gross potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $18.00 PSF with vacancy of 3.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 5% exclusive of RE taxes for the subject property. Next, the nonloaded capitalization rate was provided at 6.75% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary 2025-00266 Page 2 of 3 indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $3,931,733. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the two approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these two value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $4,160,000. The Petitioner provided an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an income approach only. The income approach concluded to a market rent of $18.71 PSF. Six comparable leases were presented in the immediate market area. Vacancy and collection was estimated at 5.0%, operating expenses a 10% and a cap rate of 7.7% indicating a value of $3,324,062. Upon cross examination the property appraiser noted that the petitioner did not provide adeaute support for the estimated cap rate and it was oversatated. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser also provided the Level of Assessment Addendum supporting the market conditions utilized within the valuation analysis. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00266: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00266 Page 3 of 3 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00268 Parcel ID 64703002820 Petitioner name GERMAIN, KAREEN Property 7738 GARDNER DR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 355,400.00 339,330.00 339,330.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 355,400.00 339,330.00 339,330.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 1 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 304,678.00 1 288,608.00 1 288,608.00 *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 ❑0ther,specify 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 The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/04/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/05/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00268 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear and did not indicate on her Petition that she wanted her evidence considered in her absence. No good cause showing was made. Ms.Ybaceta from the Property Appraiser's Office confirmed a change in TRIM values to $339,330 for Market and Assessed Values and a change in taxable value to $288,608. 2025-00268 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00271 Parcel ID 36316321007 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 4795 GOLDEN GATE PKWY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,591,708.00 1,591,708.00 1,591,708.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,429,859.00 1,429,859.00 1,429,859.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,429,859.00 1,429,859.00 1,429,859.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00271 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00271: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 4795 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 3,840 SF Class C Retail Bank Branch building in average condition. The subject was built 1990 and has a land area of 46,000 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $2124305, Sales Comparison Approach of $2,112,000 and Income Approach of $1,998,965. The Just Market Assessed Value is $1,591,708 which is 72.0% of the concluded market value of $2,210,254 in the Property Appraisers evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $2,070,000 or $45 PSF for the subject's 46,000 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $79,005, plus impact fees of $94,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $2,243,005. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $483 to $880 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $550 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $2111200. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $35 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. 2025-00271 Page 2 of 4 Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.0% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,998,976. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $2,210,254. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Approach only. The Income Approach considered a market NNN rent of $29 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% and effective operating expenses were estimated at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 5.0% with and increase to 6.63% for the millage rate consideration. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,515,999. The Petitioner further deducted personal property at $230,349 and a 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $1,092,803. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one approach to value is considered and it does not adequately analyze the land value of the subject property. Property Appraiser also noted that two rents were second floor office space, the cap rate shouldn't be adjusted for a NNN analysis and personal property should not be adjusted from the market value conclusion. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00271: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the 2025-00271 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00271 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00272 Parcel ID 56930640005 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 1090 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,255,634.00 2,255,634.00 2,255,634.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,255,634.00 2,255,634.00 2,255,634.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,255,634.00 2,255,634.00 2,255,634.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00272 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00272: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 1090 N Collier Blvd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 4,062 SF Class C Retail Bank Branch building in average condition. The subject was built 1991 and has a land area of 43,492 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $2176203, Sales Comparison Approach of $2,843,400 and Income Approach of $2,718,688. The Just Market Assessed Value is $2,255,634 which is 8 1. 1 % of the concluded market value of $2,782,870 in the Property Appraisers evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $2,609,520 or $60 PSF for the subject's 43,492 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $58,921, plus impact fees of $94,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $2,762,441. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $483 to $880 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $700 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $21843,400. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $45 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. 2025-00272 Page 2 of 4 Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.0% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $2,718,688. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $2,782,681. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Approach only. The Income Approach considered a market NNN rent of $29 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% and effective operating expenses were estimated at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 5.0% with and increase to 6.41 % for the millage rate consideration. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,658,845. The Petitioner further deducted personal property at $137,883 and a 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $1,520,962. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one approach to value is considered and it does not adequately analyze the land value of the subject property. Property Appraiser also noted that two rents were second floor office space, the cap rate shouldn't be adjusted for a NNN analysis and personal property should not be adjusted from the market value conclusion. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00272: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the 2025-00272 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00272 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00273 Parcel ID 66261901021 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 15219 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,862,061.00 1,862,061.00 1,862,061.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,862,061.00 1,862,061.00 1,862,061.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,862,061.00 1,862,061.00 1,862,061.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00273 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00273: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 15219 Collier Blvd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 3,863 SF Class C Retail Bank Branch building in average condition. The subject was built 2006 and has a land area of 44,500 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $21656,111, Sales Comparison Approach of $2,510,950 and Income Approach of $2,298,217. The Just Market Assessed Value is $1,862,061 which is 7 1. 1 % of the concluded market value of $2,619,821 in the Property Appraisers evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $2,254,230 or $45 PSF for the subject's 50,094 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $306,881, plus impact fees of $95,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $2,656,111. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $483 to $880 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $650 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $21510,950. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $40 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. 2025-00273 Page 2 of 4 Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.0% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $2,298,217. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $2,619,821. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Approach only. The Income Approach considered a market NNN rent of $30 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% and effective operating expenses were estimated at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 5.0% with and increase to 6.55% for the millage rate consideration. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,596,664. The Petitioner further deducted personal property at $140,525 and a 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $1,237,718. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one approach to value is considered and it does not adequately analyze the land value of the subject property. Property Appraiser also noted that two rents were second floor office space, the cap rate shouldn't be adjusted for a NNN analysis and personal property should not be adjusted from the market value conclusion. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00273: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the 2025-00273 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00273 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00274 Parcel ID 23945020054 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 7255 RADIO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address 4 representative NAPLES, FL 3104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,561,109.00 1,561,109.00 1,561,109.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,561,109.00 1,561,109.00 1,561,109.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,561,109.00 1,561,109.00 1,561,109.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00274 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00274: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 7255 Radio Rd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 3,213 SF Class C Retail Bank Branch building in average condition. The subject was built 1996 and has a land area of 29,000 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $21461,934, Sales Comparison Approach of $1,927,800 and Income Approach of $1,911,510. The Just Market Assessed Value is $1,561,109 which is 67.0% of the concluded market value of $2,328,401 in the Property Appraisers evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $2,313,000 or $45 PSF for the subject's 51,400 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $69,934, plus impact fees of $79,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $2,461,934. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $483 to $880 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $650 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $21088,450. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $40 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. 2025-00274 Page 2 of 4 Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.0% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,911,510. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $2,368,563. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Approach only. The Income Approach considered a market NNN rent of $32 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% and effective operating expenses were estimated at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 5.0% with and increase to 6.57% for the millage rate consideration. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,412,172. The Petitioner further deducted personal property at $217,973 and a 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $1,015,069. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one approach to value is considered and it does not adequately analyze the land value of the subject property. Property Appraiser also noted that two rents were second floor office space, the cap rate shouldn't be adjusted for a NNN analysis and personal property should not be adjusted from the market value conclusion. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00274: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the 2025-00274 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00274 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00275 Parcel ID 63518000102 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 2470 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,232,349.00 1,232,349.00 1,232,349.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,232,349.00 1,232,349.00 1,232,349.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,232,349.00 1,232,349.00 1,232,349.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00275 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00275: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 2470 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 3,106 SF Class C Retail Bank Branch building in average condition. The subject was built 2001 and has a land area of 53,579 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $2,375,646, Sales Comparison Approach of $1,941,250 and Income Approach of $1,847,863. The Just Market Assessed Value is $1,232,349 which is 54.4% of the concluded market value of $2,267,047 in the Property Appraisers evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with seven land sales indicating a land value of $2,143,160 or $40 PSF for the subject's 53,579 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $158,486, plus impact fees of $74,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $2,375,646. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $483 to $880 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $625 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $11941,250. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $40 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. 2025-00275 Page 2 of 4 Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.0% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,847,863. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $2,267,047. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Approach only. The Income Approach considered a market NNN rent of $30 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% and effective operating expenses were estimated at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 5.0% with and increase to 6.45% for the millage rate consideration. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $1,303,680. The Petitioner further deducted personal property at $125,179 and a 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $1 A 1,726. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted only one approach to value is considered and it does not adequately analyze the land value of the subject property. Property Appraiser also noted that two rents were second floor office space, the cap rate shouldn't be adjusted for a NNN analysis and personal property should not be adjusted from the market value conclusion. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00275: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the 2025-00275 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00275 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00291 Parcel ID 61560000084 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 6171 NAPLESBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,744,106.00 4,744,106.00 4,744,106.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,506,218.00 4,506,218.00 4,506,218.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,506,218.00 4,506,218.00 4,506,218.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 11/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/18/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00291 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00291: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 6171 Naples Blvd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 17,764 SF Class C Retail building in good condition. The subject was built 2016 and has a land area of 77,764 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $8,212,414, Sales Comparison Approach of $6,661,500 and Income Approach of $5,940,282. The Just Market Assessed Value is $4,744,106 which is 75.3% of the concluded market value of $6,300,891 in the Property Appraisers evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with five land sales indicating a land value of $4,652,220 or $60 PSF for the subject's 77,537 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $2,409,975, plus impact fees of $444,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $706,219. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $8,212,414. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $333 to $440 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $375 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $616611500. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $22 PSF NNN with vacancy of 4.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a 2025-00291 Page 2 of 4 basis for these expenses at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.0% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $5,940,282. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $6,300,891. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Sales and Income Approach to value. The Income Approach considered a market NNN rent of $15 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% and effective operating expenses were estimated at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 5.0% with and increase to 5.95% for the millage rate consideration. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $4,041,289. The Petitioner further deducted a 15% cost of sale for a value indication of $3,435,096. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on two comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $216 to $265 PSF. The Petitioner correlated to a market value of $204 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $3,631,859. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that the actual rent was not provided and the cap rate shouldn't be adjusted for a NNN analysis. Property Appraiser noted that two of the Petitioner's lease comps were ground leases and the third was an older former Winn Dixie property. Property Appraiser also noted that Sale #1 was a ground lease and Sale #2 was a sale lease back that cant be considered without knowing the lease terms. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00291: Florida law allows 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. 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 2025-00291 Page 3 of 4 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00291 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00315 Parcel ID 00157160000 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 11905 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 6,285,188.00 6,285,188.00 6,285,188.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,037,391.00 5,037,391.00 5,037,391.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,037,391.00 5,037,391.00 5,037,391.00 *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 11/25/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00315 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00315: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Adam Rosenblatt, from Ryan, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $6,285,188. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-good restaurant, occupied by Coopers Hawk Winery & Restaurant. The building area is 12,143-sf. the land size is 90,000-sf or 2.07 acres. The building was built in 2016. The property is located on a heavy traffic street, also known as US-41, and developed with retail uses. The property is located at 11905 Tamiami Trail N, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO indicated the local retail market remained healthy at the end of 2024, with occupancy rates at 96% for retail space and 95% for shopping centers. Asking rents have risen, particularly for shopping center space at about 7%/year. While the number of transactions had been declining, prices have not fallen, high land values continue to enhance the marketability of aging properties. The 2024 market for retail has remained stable, however, net operating incomes are expected to continue rising due to increases in insurance, taxes and labor costs. PAO presented a report containing 114 pages. The report included a cover page with 2025-00315 Page 2 of 6 photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 8 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from June 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $135.24/sf. The mean of all the sales is $65.08/sf and the median is $50.09/ s£ PAO reconciled a value at $50.00/sf x 90,000-sf or $4,5001000. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $21298,166, impact fees at $356,000, the land value is estimated at $4,500,000, entrepreneurial profit at $679,817 indicates a total cost of $7,833,983. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $6,658,885. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of restaurant properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from December 2020 to May 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,940-sf to 8,986-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 131358-sf to 851813-sf, with a Floor area ratio ranging from .08 to .15, the subject has a floor area ratio of .13. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2022. The unadjusted sales range from $474.00 to $1,055.00/sf, with a mean of $658.00/sf and a median of $617.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $650.00/sf of building area including land on 12,143-sf or $7,892,950. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $6,709,007. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. 2025-00315 Page 3 of 6 PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from CoStar, a national real estate market data survey company. The single tenant restaurant user rents range from $22.00/sf to $163.15/sf , triple net, with a mean of $56.58/sf and a median of $48.00/sf. PAO provided net rents from the net operating income (NOI) from sales that range from $16.19/sf to $78.00/sf with a mean of $44.12/sf and a mean of $40.22/sf. PAO estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf on 12,143-sf at $546.435.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.4%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 4.1%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject or $21,857 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $524,578. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income or $41,966. The net operating income is estimated at $482,611. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from restaurant sales in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from January 2024 to May 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.11% to 7.83% with a mean of 6.12% and a median of 5.83%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. %. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.15% for the subject. The NOI of $482,611 capitalized at 6.15% indicates a value of $7,847,340. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $6,670,239. PAO's just value is $6,285,188 or $518.00/sf. 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 68-pages which consists of a cover page, summary of evidence, property record card and trim notice, location map, photograph of subject and aerial and Costar's property summary. PET developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from CoStar, as well as capitalization rates. PET provided the Sales Comparable approach and provided comparable improved sales, with detailed description of each improved sale. PET provided market support for cap rates. PET included portions of 193.011 FS, 194.034 FS and 475.612 FS, as well as bulletin PTO 11-01, and form DR-493. 2025-00315 Page 4 of 6 PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 6 restaurant rents that range from $31.83/sf to $34.59/sf triple net. PET estimated a market rent of $31.00/sf on 12,143-sf for a gross income of $376,433. PET provided support for vacancy from national surveys in the range of 3.4% to 5.8%. PET estimated a vacancy of 4% for subject or $15,057. The effective gross income is $361,376. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 5% of EGI or $18,069. Net operating income is $343,307. PET provided retail cap rates from national surveys that range from an average of 5.14% to 6.63%. PET estimated a cap rate of 5.50% PET capitalized the NOI of $343,307 at 5.50% for an estimated value of $6,241,944, less 15% COS indicates a value of $5,305,652 or $437.00/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 restaurant sales in Collier County. The sales occurred from August 2024 to June 2025. The sales range in building size from 5,395-sf to 7,382-sf. The buildings were built from 1989 to 2023. PET made no adjustments, the sales range from $275.00/sf to $659.00/sf, with an average of $475.00/sf and a median of $529.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $502.00/sf of building area including land on 12,143-sf or $6,093,290, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $5,179,296 or $427.74/sf. PET requested a value of $5,242,474. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's rentals are mostly located in strip shopping centers and not freestanding buildings, these rents are lower than what could be achieved at the subject, also, the location of some of the comparables are inferior to the subject. PET's rent at $31.00/sf vs PAO's rent at $45.00 reflects the main difference in value. PAO indicated one of PET's sale is an older building and is inferior in quality and age. PET's improved sales are in inferior locations to the subject. PET had no rebuttal. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's comparable rents are in inferior locations to the subject, the subject is located along a busy street and is a freestanding building. PET's improved sales are all smaller in size to the subject, some are in inferior locations. PET's value is understated. 2025-00315 Page 5 of 6 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 2025-00315: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00315 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00321 Parcel ID 21842600168 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 8660 ADDISON PLACE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34119 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 5,942,183.00 5,942,183.00 5,942,183.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,942,183.00 5,942,183.00 5,942,183.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,942,183.00 5,942,183.00 5,942,183.00 *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 11/25/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00321 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00321: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Adam Rosenblatt, from Ryan, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $5,942,183. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-good retail building, occupied by Aldi grocery store. The building area is 19,105-sf. the land size is 109,274- sf or 2.51 acres. The building was built in 2022 and is on a ground lease. The property is subject to a ground lease. The ground lease only, on the property, sold in September 2022 for $3,650,000. PAO and PET provided a Fee Simple value for the entire property. The property is located at 8660 Addison Place Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO indicated the local retail market remained healthy at the end of 2024, with occupancy rates at 96% for retail space and 95% for shopping centers. Asking rents have risen, particularly for shopping center space at about 7%/year. While the number of transactions had been declining, prices have not fallen, high land values continue to enhance the marketability of aging properties. The 2024 market for retail has remained stable, however, net operating incomes are expected to continue rising due to increases in insurance, taxes and labor costs. 2025-00321 Page 2 of 6 PAO presented a report containing 99 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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. The subject property is on a ground lease. PAO and PET provided a Fee Simple value for the entire property. 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 Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicated Sales # 3 and # 4 are located in the same area of the subject and are considered the most comparable, these properties range in size from 42,895-sf to 90,272- sf and sold in June and December 2024 from $40.13/sf to $51.24/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $40.00/sf x 109,274-sf or $4,370,960. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $2,978,565, impact fees at $486,000, the land value is estimated at $4,370,960, entrepreneurial profit at $734,953 indicates a total cost of $8,570,478. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $7,284,906. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 4 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from April 2023 to December 2024. The sales range in building size from 7,013-sf to 28,426-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .60 acres to 2.6 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .16 to .30, the subject has a floor area ratio of .17. The buildings were built from 1970 to 2006. The unadjusted sales range from $333.00 to $440.00/sf, with a mean of $392.00/sf and a median of $396.00/sf of 2025-00321 Page 3 of 6 building area including land. PAO included other sales of single tenant retail stores that sold from November 2022 to September 2025. The buildings range from 5,000-sf to 23,279-sf and the land ranges in size from .57 acres to 6.65 acres. These properties sold from $205.00/sf to $496.00/sf with a man of $366.00/sf and a median of $398.00/sf unadjusted. PAO reconciled a value at $375.00/sf of building area including land on 19,105-sf or $7,164,375. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $61089,718. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from Costar, a national real estate market data survey company. The single tenant user rents range from $11.00/sf to $25.00/sf , triple net, with a mean of $17.73/sf and a median of $17.42/sf. PAO provided net rents from the net operating income (NOI) from sales that range from $13.13/sf to $28.02/sf with a mean of $20.10/sf and a mean of $20.41/sf. PAO estimated a market rent of $24.00/sf on 19,105-sf at $458,520.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.4%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 4.1%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject or $18,341 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $440,179. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2.0% and reserves at 3.0% for a total expense at 5% of effective gross income or $22,009. The net operating income is estimated at $418,170. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from retail sales in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from January 2020 to September 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.07% to 6.05% with a mean of 5.24% and a median of 5.39%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.8%. The Boulder Group cap rate on a 20-year ground lease ranges from 4.6% to 4.9%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.00% for the subject. The NOI of $418,170 capitalized at 6.00% indicates a value of $6,969,504. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $5,9241078. PAO's just value is $5,942,183 or $311.00/sf. 2025-00321 Page 4 of 6 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 82-pages which consists of a cover page, summary of evidence, property record card and trim notice, location map, photograph of subject and aerial and Costar's property summary. PET developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from Costar, as well as capitalization rates. PET provided the Sales Comparable approach and provided comparable improved sales with detailed description of each improved sale. PET provided market support for cap rates. PET included portions of 193.011 FS, 194.034 FS and 475.612 FS, as well as bulletin PTO 11-01, and form DR-493. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 3 rents of Aldi supermarkets, located in Naples, North Ft. Myers and Ft. Walton Beach Florida. The rents range from $ 8.89 to $11.81 /sf triple net, with the Naples property at $11.81 /sf. PET estimated a market rent of $15.00/sf on 19,105-sf for a gross income of $286,575. PET provided support for vacancy from national surveys in the range of 3.5% to 5.8%. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% for subject or $14,329. The effective gross income is $2721246. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 5% of EGI or $13,612. Net operating income is $258,634. PET provided retail cap rates from national surveys that range from an average of 5.14% to 6.63%. PET estimated a cap rate of 5.00% PET capitalized the NOI of $258,634 at 5.00% for an estimated value of $5,172,679, less 15% COS indicates a value of $4,396,777 or $230.00/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 3 sales of retail properties in Collier County and 2 sales and one listing of Aldi stores. The sales occurred from November 2024 to July 2025. The sales range in building size from 15,520-sf to 21,293- sf. The buildings were built from 1978 to 2025. PET made no adjustments, the sales range from $154.00/sf to $418.00/sf, with an average of $276.00/sf and a median of $241.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $258.00/sf of building area including land on 19,105-sf or $4,931,445, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $4,191,728 or $168.74/sf. PET requested a value of $4,294,5252. 2025-00321 Page 5 of 6 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's rentals are all Aldi ground leases only and do not take into consideration the building. PET's improved sales of Aldi Properties are for the ground lease only and so not include a building. PAO indicated PET's sale # 3 on Naples Boulevard was a sale lease back. PET had no rebuttal. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's comparable rents and improved sales are for the ground lease and do not take into consideration the building. The Fee Simple value of the land and building is being sought in this petition and PET provided a leased fee value for the land. 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 2025-00321: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00321 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00342 Parcel ID 00281840005 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 971 COMMERCIALBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 7,408,755.00 7,408,755.00 7,408,755.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,454,983.00 6,454,983.00 6,454,983.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,454,983.00 6,454,983.00 6,454,983.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/19/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00342 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00342: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Christopher DelPo, MAI while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt with RYAN who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $7,408,755. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is an improved Distribution Warehouse building located at 971 Commercial Blvd, Naples, Florida 34104. Subject site improvements include 33,092 SF Class S warehouse building in Average condition. The subject was built in 1990 with a land area of 608,098 SF or 13.96 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $15,187,522, Sales Comparison Approach of $15,746,221 and Income Approach of $14,959,577. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $714081000. The Cost Approach was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $13,595,241 or $22.36 PSF for the subject's 608,098 square feet of land area. Surplus land has been calculated at $8,631,441 or $19.50 PSF for the subject's 442,638 square feet of surplus land area. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $794,780, plus impact fees of $78,000. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $15,187,522. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on twelve comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $202 to $403 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $215 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $7,114,780. Plus surplus land of $8,631,441 for a value conclusion of $15,746,221. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property 2025-00342 Page 2 of 4 Appraiser provided discussion of how the gross potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $15.00 PSF with vacancy of 3.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 8% exclusive of RE taxes for the subject property. Next, the nonloaded capitalization rate was provided at 7.0% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $6,328,136. Plus surplus land of $81631,441 for a value conclusion of $14,959,577. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $15,746,221. Less a 15% cost of sale indicates a just value of $13,384,288. The Petitioner provided an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an income approach and sales comparison approach for the 2024 tax year. The income approach concluded to a value of $5,337,597. Upon cross examination the property appraiser noted that the petitioner did not account for surplus land in the analysis and the cap rate should not be loaded when utilizing a NNN rent. The sales approach included three improved closed sales. The improved sales analysis concluded to $6,303,628. Upon cross examination the property appraiser noted that the petitioner did not account for surplus land. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser also provided the Level of Assessment Addendum supporting the market conditions utilized within the valuation analysis. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser sales analysis. The Petitioner analysis did not account for surplus land. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00342: Florida law allows 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. 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 2025-00342 Page 3 of 4 Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00342 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00348 Parcel ID 31055001007 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 6825 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 17,638,337.00 17,638,337.00 17,638,337.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 17,638,337.00 17,638,337.00 17,638,337.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 17,638,337.00 17,638,337.00 17,638,337.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/19/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00348 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00348: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt of RYAN LLC, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $17,638,337 for Petition 2025-00348 and $8,460,383 for Petition 2025-00349 or $26,098,720 total. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 6825 David Blvd and 6855 Davis Blvd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 157,089 SF Class C Senior Housing building in good condition and a 59,538 SF Class C ILF, ALF, MC building in good condition. The subject was built 2001-2015 and has a land area of 10.79 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and the Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $40,087,210, Sales Comparison Approach of $38,520,000 and Income Approach of $32,145,452. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $34,074,129. The Just Market Assessed Value is $26,098,720 which is 77% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $7,050,195 or $15 PSF for the subject's 470,013 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $29,995,726, plus impact fees of $902,000, entrepreneurial incentive of $3,704,592 and lease up costs of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $41,652,514, less Personal Property of $1,565,304 for a value conclusion of $40,087,210. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on twenty comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $56,667 to $442,188 per unit. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $180,000 per unit which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison 2025-00348 Page 2 of 4 Approach of $38,520,000. The Income Approach was provided next but was considered secondary in nature. Income rates were based on confidential information provided by similar properties in Collier County. Monthly rates were $5,000 for independent living, $6,000 for memory care. NOI is concluded at $14,273 per unit annually. Utilizing a loaded cap rate of 9.06% indicates a value of $33,710,756, less Personal Property of $1,565,304 for a value conclusion of $32,145,452. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph indicating the cost approach was the best indicator of value. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $40,087,210. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. For Petition 2025-00348 the Petitioner provided an actual 2024 Income and Expense Analysis. NOI was reported at $1,901,346 with a 82% expense ratio. The Petitioner applied a 1.25 lease coverage ratio to bifurcate real estate and going concern income to estimate a NOI to Real Estate of $1,521,077. The Petitioner concluded to a loaded cap rate of 9.53%, indicating a value of $15,959,000 less cost of sale at 15% for a concluded value of $315131633. For Petition 2025-00348 the Petitioner provided an actual 2024 Income and Expense Analysis. NOI was reported at $765,802 with a 85% expense ratio. The Petitioner applied a 1.33 lease coverage ratio to bifurcate real estate and going concern income to estimate a NOI to Real Estate of $575,791. The Petitioner concluded to a loaded cap rate of 10.5%, indicating a value of $5,498,203. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that no support is provided for the lease coverage ratio provided in the Petitioners analysis. The Property Appraiser further stated that the cost approach is the most applicable approach in estimating Real Estate only. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior income analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost, Sales and Income analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00348: Florida law allows 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 2025-00348 Page 3 of 4 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00348 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00349 Parcel ID 76710010026 Petitioner name ANDRES VENGOECHEA Property 6855 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 8,460,383.00 8,460,383.00 8,460,383.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,460,383.00 8,460,383.00 8,460,383.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,460,383.00 8,460,383.00 8,460,383.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/05/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00349 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00349: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Adam Rosenblatt of RYAN LLC, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $17,638,337 for Petition 2025-00348 and $8,460,383 for Petition 2025-00349 or $26,098,720 total. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 6855 David Blvd and 6825 Davis Blvd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 157,089 SF Class C Senior Housing building in good condition and a 59,538 SF Class C ILF, ALF, MC building in good condition. The subject was built 2001-2015 and has a land area of 10.79 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and the Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $40,087,210, Sales Comparison Approach of $38,520,000 and Income Approach of $32,145,452. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $34,074,129. The Just Market Assessed Value is $26,098,720 which is 77% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $7,050,195 or $15 PSF for the subject's 470,013 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $29,995,726, plus impact fees of $902,000, entrepreneurial incentive of $3,704,592 and lease up costs of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $41,652,514, less Personal Property of $1,565,304 for a value conclusion of $40,087,210. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on twenty comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $56,667 to $442,188 per unit. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $180,000 per unit which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison 2025-00349 Page 2 of 4 Approach of $38,520,000. The Income Approach was provided next but was considered secondary in nature. Income rates were based on confidential information provided by similar properties in Collier County. Monthly rates were $5,000 for independent living, $6,000 for memory care. NOI is concluded at $14,273 per unit annually. Utilizing a loaded cap rate of 9.06% indicates a value of $33,710,756, less Personal Property of $1,565,304 for a value conclusion of $32,145,452. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph indicating the cost approach was the best indicator of value. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $40,087,210. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. For Petition 2025-00348 the Petitioner provided an actual 2024 Income and Expense Analysis. NOI was reported at $1,901,346 with a 82% expense ratio. The Petitioner applied a 1.25 lease coverage ratio to bifurcate real estate and going concern income to estimate a NOI to Real Estate of $1,521,077. The Petitioner concluded to a loaded cap rate of 9.53%, indicating a value of $15,959,000 less cost of sale at 15% for a concluded value of $315131633. For Petition 2025-00348 the Petitioner provided an actual 2024 Income and Expense Analysis. NOI was reported at $765,802 with a 85% expense ratio. The Petitioner applied a 1.33 lease coverage ratio to bifurcate real estate and going concern income to estimate a NOI to Real Estate of $575,791. The Petitioner concluded to a loaded cap rate of 10.5%, indicating a value of $5,498,203. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that no support is provided for the lease coverage ratio provided in the Petitioners analysis. The Property Appraiser further stated that the cost approach is the most applicable approach in estimating Real Estate only. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior income analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost, Sales and Income analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00349: Florida law allows 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 2025-00349 Page 3 of 4 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00349 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00402 Parcel ID 24630040005 Petitioner name MARTIN J BESKOW, OWNER OF MJB BON Property 990 VALLEYDR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 872,051.00 872,051.00 645,575.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 872,051.00 872,051.00 645,575.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 872,051.00 872,051.00 645,575.00 *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 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00402 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00402: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Martin Beskow, owners of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $8721051. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling with a pool area. The base building area is 1,635-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,089-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .34 acres or 15,007-sf. The property was built in 1998, with an effective age of 1998, PAO indicated the property was upgraded due to hurricane damage and a newer effective age will be noted in next years assessment. The property sold August 20, 2024 for $775,000. The property is located at 990 E. Valley Drive, Bonita Springs Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00402 Page 2 of 5 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale as well as a location map of the sales. PAO included the ratio data analysis (which explains mass appraisal methods to determine a fair market value), PAO included and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 one vacant land sale and 4 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from May 2024 to December 2024. The lots range in size from 7,800-sf to 15,007-sf. The sales range in value from $19.91/sf to $52.98/sf. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and cost of sales of -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $35.24 x 15,007-sf = $52801. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $35,090 and impact fees are estimated at $26,900; depreciated building cost is estimated at $346,806, the land value is estimated at $528,881 for a total cost of $937,678. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. Sale # 1 is the recent sale of the subject. The sales occurred from May 2024 to December 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,252-sf to 11866-sf and adjusted building size of 1,586-sf to 2,327-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 7,800-sf to 15,007-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 1998 to 2015. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 0 to -4%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $309.00 to $497.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $413.00/sf and a median of $424.00/sf of building area including land. The sale of the subject has an adjusted price of $309.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $424.00/sf of building area including land on 2,089-sf or $886,000 rounded. 2025-00402 Page 3 of 5 PET's evidence consisted of a 15-page report, consisting of 12 comparative sales on a spread sheet. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject was purchased in August 2024 for $775,000, the property had been on the market for 231 days and the price had originally been $1,200,000. The subject is located in a flood zone and the property was flooded during a hurricane in 2022 and repaired. PET indicated all of PAO's sales, except for the subject, did not suffer damage from the hurricane. PET provided 12 sales that occurred from January to December 2024 in subject neighborhood, the sales range in adjusted square foot size from 1,324-sf to 2,758-sf with a land size from 7,841-sf to 14,246-sf. These properties sold in the range of $276.75 to $654.75 with a mean of $375.57/sf not including a reduction for cost of sale. PET compared the assessed values of these properties versus the sale price. As rebuttal, PAO indicated no hurricane damage was reported for this property in order to make an adjustment. PAO introduced an email(dated April 2024) from a realtor as rebuttal, which was accepted by Special Magistrate, indicating the noise caused by the construction of a lift station, in close proximity to the subject, is driving potential buyers away. PAO indicated assessed values cannot be used as a value comparison, the value is based on recent sales of comparable properties. As rebuttal, PET indicated the sale of the subject was a market transaction with no undue stimulus. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Sales Comparison approach using current 2024. The sale of the subject is the best indicator of value as the sales was an arm's length transaction, the property had been on the market for 231 days with price reductions during that time. PAO adjusted the subject sale -2% for time of sale and -15% for cost of sale. The adjusted price is $645,575. SM has revised the value based on the current market sale of the subject at $645,575. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00402: 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 2025-00402 Page 4 of 5 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 did not arrive at the assessment by complying with these standards, PAO's value is overstated. PAO did not establish 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). Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $645,575. 2025-00402 Page 5 of 5 F10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00403 Parcel ID 59960201220 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 16736 LUCARNO WAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,517,604.00 1,365,843.00 1,073,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/19/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/19/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00403 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00403: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $1,365,843. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential lot located at 16736 Lucarno Way, Naples, Florida. Subject site is 0.29 acres or 12,140.83 square feet. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,416,565 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,365,843. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $94 PSF to $143 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $117 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,417,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including five comparable sales. The Petitioner also applied 15% cost of sale adjustment as well as an negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices indication a range from $684,200 to $758, 349. The Petitioner concluded to a market value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $729,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that improvement costs were estimate using Marshall Swift and the Petitioner noted that they utilized the Contractors estimate 2025-00403 Page 2 of 3 of actual costs to construct a home in the neighborhood. For comparison purposes, both used a similar Sale 1. This property has 3,317 square feet of living area. The Property Appraiser estimated the building improvements at $1,346,432 or $406 PSF and the Petitioner estimated building improvements at $1,990,200 or $600 PSF. Both the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner provided relevant and credible evidence utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value with the extraction method. The primary difference in the value conclusion was the estimate of the contributory value of the comparable improvements. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Contributory value of improvements is subjective in nature and both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner provided a reasonable estimate of contributory value and ultimately land value. Therefore, the magistrate will give equal consideration to both conclusions and conclude at a just value of $1,073,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00403: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $1,073,000 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00403 Page 3 of 3 F10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00404 Parcel ID 59960200302 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 16751 LUCARNO WAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,378,440.00 1,240,596.00 991,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/15/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00404 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00404: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $1,240,596. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential lot located at 16751 Lucarno Way, Naples, Florida. Subject site is 0.25 acres or 11,027.52 square feet. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,286,839 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,240,596. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $94 PSF to $143 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $117 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,287,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including five comparable sales. The Petitioner also applied 15% cost of sale adjustment as well as an negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices indication a range from $650,800 to $724,949. The Petitioner concluded to a market value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $696,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that improvement costs were estimated using Marshall Swift and the Petitioner noted that they utilized the Contractors 2025-00404 Page 2 of 3 estimate of actual costs to construct a home in the neighborhood. For comparison purposes, both used a similar Sale 1. This property has 3,317 square feet of living area. The Property Appraiser estimated the building improvements at $1,346,432 or $406 PSF and the Petitioner estimated building improvements at $1,990,200 or $600 PSF. Both the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner provided relevant and credible evidence utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value with the extraction method. The primary difference in the value conclusion was the estimate of the contributory value of the comparable improvements. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Contributory value of improvements is subjective in nature and both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner provided a reasonable estimate of contributory value and ultimately land value. Therefore, the magistrate will give equal consideration to both conclusions and conclude at a just value of $991,500. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00404: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $991,500 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00404 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00405 Parcel ID 25190000186 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 16858 CAMINETTO CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,257,714.00 943,285.00 906,643.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 168,375.00 168,375.00 168,375.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 168,375.00 168,375.00 168,375.00 *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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/15/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00405 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00405: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $943,285. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential lot located at 16858 Caminetto Court, Naples, Florida. Subject site is 0.44 acres or 19,349.44 square feet. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $948,123 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $943,285. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $65 PSF to $142 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $49 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $948,123 . The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including five comparable sales. The Petitioner also applied 15% cost of sale adjustment as well as an negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices indication a range from $754,200 to $957,600. The Petitioner concluded to a market value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $870,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that improvement costs were estimated using Marshall Swift and the Petitioner noted that they utilized the Contractors 2025-00405 Page 2 of 3 estimate of actual costs to construct a home in the neighborhood. Both the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner provided relevant and credible evidence utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value with the extraction method. The primary difference in the value conclusion was the estimate of the contributory value of the comparable improvements. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Contributory value of improvements is subjective in nature and both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner provided a reasonable estimate of contributory value and ultimately land value. Therefore, the magistrate will give equal consideration to both conclusions and conclude at a just value of $906,643. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00405: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $906,643 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00405 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00406 Parcel ID 27860000184 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 16962 SUD CORTILE CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,492,874.00 2,492,874.00 2,190,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 648,903.00 648,903.00 648,903.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 648,903.00 648,903.00 648,903.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/19/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/19/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00406 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00406: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $2,492,874. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential lot located at 16962 Sud Cortile Court, Naples, Florida. Subject site is 0.43 acres or 19,942.99 square feet. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $2,638,001 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $2,492,874. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on three comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $118 PSF to $139 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $125 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $2163 81000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including five comparable sales. The Petitioner also applied 15% cost of sale adjustment as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices indication a range from $1,597,955 to $1,858,850. The Petitioner concluded to a market value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,742,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that improvement costs were 2025-00406 Page 2 of 3 estimated using Marshall Swift and the Petitioner noted that they utilized the Contractors estimate of actual costs to construct a home in the neighborhood. Both the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner provided relevant and credible evidence utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value with the extraction method. The primary difference in the value conclusion was the estimate of the contributory value of the comparable improvements. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Contributory value of improvements is subjective in nature and both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner provided a reasonable estimate of contributory value and ultimately land value. Therefore, the magistrate will give equal consideration to both conclusions and conclude at a just value of $2,190,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00406: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $2,190,000 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00406 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00407 Parcel ID 59960201165 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 16717 STELLACT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,848,996.00 1,664,096.00 1,218,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/15/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00407 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00407: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $1,664,096. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential lot located at 16717 Stella Court, Naples, Florida. Subject site is 0.34 acres or 14,791.97 square feet. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,726,125 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,664,096. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $94 PSF to $143 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $117 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,726,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including five comparable sales. The Petitioner also applied 15% cost of sale adjustment as well as an negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices indication a range from $663,700 to $737,849. The Petitioner concluded to a market value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $710,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that improvement costs were estimated using Marshall Swift and the Petitioner noted that they utilized the Contractors 2025-00407 Page 2 of 3 estimate of actual costs to construct a home in the neighborhood. Both the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner provided relevant and credible evidence utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value with the extraction method. The primary difference in the value conclusion was the estimate of the contributory value of the comparable improvements. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Contributory value of improvements is subjective in nature and both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner provided a reasonable estimate of contributory value and ultimately land value. Therefore, the magistrate will give equal consideration to both conclusions and conclude at a just value of $1,218,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00407: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $1,218,000 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00407 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00408 Parcel ID 59960201149 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 16721 STELLACT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,375,380.00 1,375,380.00 1,046,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 194,193.00 194,193.00 194,193.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/15/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00408 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00408: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $1,375,380. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential lot located at 16721 Stella Court, Naples, Florida. Subject site is 0.26 acres or 11,003.04 square feet. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,396,863 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,375,380. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $110 PSF to $143 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $125 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,397,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including five comparable sales. The Petitioner also applied 15% cost of sale adjustment as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices indication a range from $650,100 to $724,149. The Petitioner concluded to a market value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $695,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that improvement costs were estimated using Marshall Swift and the Petitioner noted that they utilized the Contractors 2025-00408 Page 2 of 3 estimate of actual costs to construct a home in the neighborhood. Both the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner provided relevant and credible evidence utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value with the extraction method. The primary difference in the value conclusion was the estimate of the contributory value of the comparable improvements. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Contributory value of improvements is subjective in nature and both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner provided a reasonable estimate of contributory value and ultimately land value. Therefore, the magistrate will give equal consideration to both conclusions and conclude at a just value of $1,046,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00408: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $1,046,000 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00408 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00409 Parcel ID 14151480002 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 477 3RD STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 7,728,864.00 5,796,648.00 5,796,648.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,545,400.00 5,545,400.00 5,545,400.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,545,400.00 5,545,400.00 5,545,400.00 *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 (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/15/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00409 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00409: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $5,796,648. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential lot located at 477 3rd Street North, Naples, Florida. Subject site is 0.51 acres or 21,957 square feet. The property is currently listed for sale for $17,999,000. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property site. Next, the Property Appraiser included a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $8,177,000 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $5,796,648. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied to all of the sales. Sale #3 was an improved sale, a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property was applied to this sale. The sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $298 PSF to $465 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $372 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $8,177,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including six comparable sales. The Petitioner also applied 15% cost of sale adjustment as well as a negative adjustment for estimated improvement cost to Sales 5 and 6 to indicate an extraction land value for the subject property. The sales prices indication a range from $3,866,200 to $4,896,000. The Petitioner concluded to a market value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $4118000. 2025-00409 Page 2 of 3 In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that improvement costs were estimated using Marshall Swift and the Petitioner noted that they utilized the Contractors estimate of actual costs to construct a home in the neighborhood. Both the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner provided relevant and credible evidence utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value with the some actual land sales and some values estimated via the extraction method. The primary difference in the value conclusion was the location of the comparable sales and the estimate of the contributory value of the comparable improvements. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00409: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00409 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00410 Parcel ID 17012640001 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 1672 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 20,939,189.00 20,939,189.00 20,939,189.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 20,939,189.00 20,939,189.00 20,939,189.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 20,939,189.00 20,939,189.00 20,939,189.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/15/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00410 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00410: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $2019391189. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 1672 Galleon Dr, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a High Value IV quality two-story single-family residence with a pool area and docks. The subject was built in 2011 with an effective age of 2015 and has a base area of 6,240 square feet and 8,928 adjusted square feet on a 37,026 square foot lot. The property last sold on February 22, 2023 for $46,800,000. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $23,724,905 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $25,444,865 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $20,939,189. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the sales approach with six land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $13,899,968 or $375 PSF for the subject's 37,026 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $8,905,739 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $883,225 with impact fees of $35,973. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $23,724,905. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on six comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $2,389 PSF to 2025-004 ] 0 Page 2 of 3 $31058 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $2,512 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $25,445,000. The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach and provided information on six improved properties. After time adjustments and cost of sale adjustments, the sales provided a value indication range from $14,776,500 to $19,374,000 and the Petitioner concluded at $17,700,000. In cross examination the Property Appraiser noted that all of the comparable sales were adjusted for land size difference at $100 PSF when the subject land value is closer to $375 PSF. The Property Appraiser also noted that subject property had a complete remodel which was not reflected in the Petitioners analysis. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00410: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-004 ] 0 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00432 Parcel ID 14017360004 Petitioner name DIEGO, PABLO PATRICIA Property 270 3RD A The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES representative ES, FLL 34102 N ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 10,263,080.00 10,263,080.00 10,263,080.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,263,080.00 10,263,080.00 10,263,080.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,212,358.00 10,212,358.00 10,212,358.00 *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 11/18/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/20/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00432 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00432: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Robert Epperson. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $10126300. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00432 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00436 Parcel ID 74445100504 Petitioner name JACOBSON LAW FIRM P.C. Property 1710 HEALTHPKWY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 7,306,302.00 7,306,302.00 7,306,302.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,306,302.00 7,306,302.00 7,306,302.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,306,302.00 7,306,302.00 7,306,302.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/01/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/03/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00436 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00436: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Robert L Jacobson of Jacobson Law Firm, who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $7,306,302. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 1710 SW Health Parkway, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 94,696 SF Class C Senior Housing building in average condition. The subject was built in 1998 and has a land area of 7.2 acres or 313,632 SF. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, the Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $10,112,539, Sales Comparison Approach of $10,780,176 and Income Approach of $10,616,487. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $10,112,539. The Just Market Assessed Value is $7,306,302 which is 72.2% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $7,840,800 or $25 PSF for the subject's 313,632 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $820,619, plus impact fees of $530,000, entrepreneurial incentive of $866,142 and lease up costs of $494,802. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $10,552,363, less Personal Property of $439,824 for a value conclusion of $10,112,539. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on twenty comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $56,667 to $442,188 per unit. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $85,000 per unit which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $10,780,176. 2025-00436 Page 2 of 4 The Income Approach was provided next but was considered secondary in nature. Income rates were based on confidential information provided by similar properties in Collier County. Monthly rates were $3,500 for unit. NOI is concluded at $7,497 per unit annually. Utilizing a loaded cap rate of 8.95% indicates a value of $11,056,3121, less Personal Property of $439,824 for a value conclusion of $10,616,487. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph indicating the cost approach was the best indicator of value. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $10,1121539. The Property Appraiser noted the subject sold on 2/21/2017 for $9,500,000 and in December 2024, the new owner recorded a memorandum of guaranty assumption and loan modification agreement on 2/14/2020 in an amount of $25,967,500. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided an actual 2022, 2023 and 2024 Income and Expense Analysis. 2024 NOI was reported at $200,729 with a 96% expense ratio. After deductions for Management and reserves the cash flow is negative. The Petitioner concluded to a loaded cap rate of 8.95%, but this indicating a negative value. The Petitioner did consider 2022 and 2023 value indications and concluded to a market value assessment of $3,000,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that the land value only for the subject is $7,840,800 which is greater than the subject's Just Value of $7,306,302. The Property Appraiser further stated that the cost approach is the most applicable approach in estimating Real Estate only and if the property has a negative cash flow it is not being utilized at its highest and best use. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior income analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost, Sales and Income analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00436: Florida law allows 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. 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 2025-00436 Page 3 of 4 practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00436 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00437 Parcel ID 74445101325 Petitioner name JACOBSON LAW FIRM P.C. Property N/A The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/01/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/03/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00437 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00437: Findings of Fact All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris De1Po, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Robert L Jacobson of Jacobson Law Firm, who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $100. The Property Appraiser and Petitioner both did not present any information and both agreed the just market value of $100 was reasonable. It is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00437: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00437 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00441 Parcel ID 36316320008 Petitioner name BRUCE STAVITSKY Property 4817 GOLDEN GATE PKWY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 13,584,878.00 13,584,878.00 13,584,878.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 11,470,353.00 11,470,353.00 11,470,353.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 11,470,353.00 11,470,353.00 11,470,353.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/01/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/03/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00441 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00441: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by James Ryan of RYAN LLC, who was present at the hearing via conference call. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $13,584,878. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 4817 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 106,485 SF Class C Retail Neighborhood Center in good condition. The subject was built 1989 and has a land area of 11.22 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail and Income Approach with supporting detail. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $18,681,476, Sales Comparison Approach of $18,634,875 and Income Approach of $15,963,131. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled market value of $17,299,003. The Just Market Assessed Value is $13,584,878 which is 78.5% of the concluded market value in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with five land sales indicating a land value of $9,774,860 or $20 PSF for the subject's 488,743 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $5,003,038, plus impact fees of $1,817,000, entrepreneurial incentive of $1,477,790 and lease up costs of $608,789. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $18,681,476. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on nine comparable properties. The unadjusted sale prices ranged from $140 to $451 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $175 PSF for the subjects 106,485 SF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $18,634,875. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property 2025-00441 Page 2 of 4 Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser considered a market NNN rent of $12.67 PSF with vacancy of 8.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 10% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 7.00% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $15,963,142. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph indicating the sales and income approach were the best indicators of value. The Property Appraiser reconciled to a market value estimate of $17,299,003. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided an actual 2024 Income and Expense Analysis. NOI was reported at $7551639. The Petitioner concluded to a cap rate of 8.2%, indicating a value of $9,215,110. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that the applicable value estimate is a Fee Simple Value and not a Leased Fee value as provided by the Petitioner. The Property Appraiser further stated that no support is provided for market rent, an expense ratio of 50% or a cap rate of 8.2%. The Property Appraiser further noted that the Petitioners concluded value of $86 PSF is well below the Sales Comps provided. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales and Income Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided an inferior income analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's Cost, Sales and Income analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00441: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the 2025-00441 Page 3 of 4 appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00441 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00442 Parcel ID 00152240006 Petitioner name SABRINA ROBINSON Property 14250 TAM IAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 18,018,181.00 18,018,181.00 18,018,181.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,363,010.00 16,363,010.00 16,363,010.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,363,010.00 16,363,010.00 16,363,010.00 *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 02/07/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00442 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00442: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Vincent Burnett, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1810181181. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a Big Box/Furniture Showroom, one-story, class C-good, retail store with two tenants. The building area is 133,571-sf and was built in two stages - 85,554-sf was built in 2008 and 48,017-sf was built in 2021. The land size is 821,542-sf or 18.86 acres of which 386,378-sf or 8.87 acres are conservation lands and the main site has 435,164-sf or 9.99 acres. The subject is located at 14250 Tamiami Trail N, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 127 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed 2025-00442 Page 2 of 6 description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the warranty deed with legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the buildings. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from February 2022 to December 2024. The land sales range in size from 157,908-sf to 1,433,137-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $12.91/sf to $28.87/sf. The mean of all the sales is $21.90/sf and the median is $22.13/sf. PAO estimated a value at $25.00/sf x 435,164-sf(main site only) or $101879,100. PAO indicated a nominal value was applied to the conservation land. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. PAO indicated each building was estimated separately as the buildings have a different depreciation based on the age. The blended depreciated building cost, for both buildings, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $10,458,850, impact fees at $529,000, the land value is estimated at $10,879,100, entrepreneurial profit at $2,133,795 indicates a total cost of $24,000,745. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2014001633. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of properties in western Florida. The sales occurred from April 2021 to November 2024. The sales range in building size from 28,426-sf to 288.313-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 2.6 acres to 33.49 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .15 to .27, the subject has a floor area ratio of .16. The buildings were built from 1986 to 2008. The unadjusted sales range from $130.00 to $440.00/sf, with a mean of $211.00/sf and a median of $201.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value based on the sales located in Naples that are at $150.00/sf, $201.00/sf and $440.00/sf. PAO estimated a value at $185.00/sf of building area including land on 133,571-sf or $24,710,635. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $21,004,039. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of larger retail space, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided 48 market extracted base rents of large retail buildings in Florida. The rents range from $8.00/sf to $35.00/sf with a mean of $15.40/sf and a median of $14.50/ sf. PAO indicated rent # 1, located in Naples, is a recent lease, as the property sold in 2025-00442 Page 3 of 6 2021; the rent is $13.54/sf on 106,690-sf, the largest size building in the survey. PAO estimated a rent of $14.00/sf on 133,571-sf at $1,869,994.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 3.81 %. PAO estimated a vacancy at 8% for the subject. The effective gross income (EGI) is $1,720,394. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 4.0% and reserves at 6% for a total expense at 10% of effective gross income. The net operating income (NOI) is $1,548,355. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from retail sales in Florida. The sales occurred from November 2022 to September 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.10% to 6.58% with a mean of 5.65% and a median of 5.98%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%), Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non - loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. The Boulder Group has a cap rate at 6.52%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.5% for the subj ect. The NOI of $1,548,355 capitalized at 6.5% indicates a value of $23,820,847. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $20,247,719. PAO's just value is $18,018,181 or $135.00/sf. 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 total of 75-pages which consists of a cover page, a summary of the property with value indications , aerial, property appraiser summary, and trim notice for the subject. PET provided a property summary from Co Star with photographs of the subject and location map. PET provided leases from Costar, rent comparables from PAO's report for a petition heard in 2023; PET provided rents from large freestanding retail buildings, with rents dated from 2021-2023. PET provided more leases from CoStar with photographs and details of each lease. PET provided an Income Proforma, PET included capitalization rate analysis. PET provided comparable sales in chart form. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. At the hearing, PET indicated the building size in the evidence provided by PET was 2025-00442 Page 4 of 6 incorrect; PET based the analysis and value on a building size of 55,148-sf and a lot size of 435,164-sf. At the hearing PET proceeded to verbally revise the value based on a building size of 133,571-sf. In PET's evidence, PET provided a value by the Income Approach and a value by the Sales Comparison Approach, however, at the hearing PET did not place emphasis on the Sales Comparison. The evidence provided by PET in the Income Approach is based on a smaller building size of 55,148-sf and PET estimated a rent of $20.00/sf, based on this size. At the hearing PET verbally reduced the rent to $10.00/sf on 133,571-sf, with no support for the reduction in rent provided in PET's evidence. PAO objected to the change in value as proposed by PET, as the evidence submitted and reviewed by PAO for the hearing was based on a building size of 55,148-sf which was not correct. PAO indicated PET is not familiar with the property and how can PET's evidence be considered for a value conclusion when the building size and year built are incorrect. PET's Costar description and analysis of the property is based on the description of one building only, PET did not include the second building. PET provided evidence in their report of PAO's rents from a prior petition that was heard two years ago and this evidence is dated. PAO indicated PET is changing the value on evidence not submitted for review by PAO and changing the value at the hearing. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's value from the evidence submitted is not representative of the value of the property. At the hearing, PET attempted to provide a verbal value based on a revised building size; and the evidence submitted by PET for this hearing does not support the changes proposed by PET. SM did not summarize PET's value conclusion, as PET's evidence does not represent the true size of the property being reviewed. 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 2025-00442: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00442 Page 5 of 6 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00442 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00444 Parcel ID 00196760005 Petitioner name C/O MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP. Property 5410 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 5,019,310.00 4,325,709.00 3,049,800.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,194,097.00 4,194,097.00 3,049,800.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,194,097.00 4,194,097.00 3,049,800.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/01/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/03/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00444 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00444: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Dan Zazzali of McCarter and English and Jack C Morgan 11, MAI, SRA, AI-GRS of JC Morgan Appraisals who were present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $413251709. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 5410 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 14,308 SF Class C Retail building in average condition. The subject was built 2005 and has a land area of 73,829 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $6,422,976, Sales Comparison Approach of $6,438,600 and Income Approach of $5,879,076. The Just Market Assessed Value is $4,325,709, which is 70.2% of the concluded market value of $6,1581838 in the Property Appraisers evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with five land sales indicating a land value of $4,429,740 or $60 PSF for the subject's 73,829 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $1,233,874, plus impact fees of $193,000 and entrepreneurial incentive of $566,361. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $6,422,976. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on six comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $316 to $598 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $450 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $6,438,600. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser 2025-00444 Page 2 of 4 considered a market NNN rent of $28 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 5% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.15% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $5,879,076. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $6,158,838. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Approach to value. The Income Approach considered a market NNN rent of $22 PSF NNN with vacancy of 5.0% and effective operating expenses were estimated at 10% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 7.5%. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $3,588,000. In cross examination, the Petitioner noted the property has Deed Restrictions that doesn't allow grocery stores, no restaurants, no gyms, no dollar stores, no tire stores, no auto sales and no cafe. The Property Appraiser indicated the values presented did not consider the Deed Restrictions as they were not aware of the Deed Restrictions prior to the hearing. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property that did not consider the Deed Restrictions on the property and its impact on all three approaches to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Utilizing the Petitioners concluded value of $3,588,000 less a 15% cost of sale indicates a just value of $3,049,800. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00444: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property 2025-00444 Page 3 of 4 Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $3,049,800 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00444 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00452 Parcel ID 00275880000 Petitioner name FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX SERVICE Property 4325 DOMESTIC AVE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MIAMI, FL 33183 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,253,633.00 4,253,633.00 4,253,633.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,514,664.00 3,514,664.00 3,514,664.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,514,664.00 3,514,664.00 3,514,664.00 *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 01/09/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/12/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00452 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00452: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPO. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Ronald Rodriguez, from Florida Property Tax Service, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $4,253,633. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-Average office warehouse, with a 7,680-sf mezzanine storage area. The building area is 20,696-sf, the land size is 61,000-sf or 1.4 acres. The building was built in 1998. The property is located at 4325 Domestic Avenue, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 55 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the 2025-00452 Page 2 of 6 legal description, market data support and 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 presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 10 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2024 to January 2005. The sales range in building size from 10,100-sf to 28,466-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .67 acres to 3.72 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .15 to .43, the subject has a floor area ratio of .34. The buildings were built from 1974 to 2004. The unadjusted sales range from $202.00 to $403.00/sf, with a mean of $289.00/sf and a median of $280.00/sf of building area including land. PAO indicated sales # 1, 6, 7,8 and 10 are similar in size to the subject and are single user buildings, all sales except sale # 6 are in close proximity to the subject. PAO reconciled a value at $250.00/sf (below the average and median price of the sales) of building area including land on 20,696-sf or $5,174,000. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $4,397,900. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from Costar, a national real estate market data survey company. The triple net rents range from $15.00/sf to $23.94/sf , triple net, with a mean of $19.00/sf and a median of $18.50/sf. PAO provided net rents from the net operating income (NOI) from sales that range from $9.41/sf to $17.50/sf with a mean of $13.89/sf and a median of $14.65/s£ (subject is at $16.59/sf). PAO estimated a market rent of $18.00/sf on 20,696-sf at $372,528.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for industrial space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates a vacancy of 2% to 3%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 3% for the subject or $11,176. The effective gross income (EGI) of $361,352. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2.0% and reserves at 3.0% for a total expense at 5% of effective gross income or $18,068. The net operating income is estimated at $343,285. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from industrial sales in Collier County. The sales occurred from May 2023 to April 2024. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.00% to 7.22% with a mean of 5.93% and a median of 5.70%. PAO provided the 4th Q 2024 cap rate for industrial buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, Boulder Group, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges 2025-00452 Page 3 of 6 from 5.27% to 7.9%, the county industrial sales are at 6.03%. The average of all is 6.73%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.75% The NOI of $343,285 capitalized at 6.75% indicates a value of $5,085,697. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $4,3221842. PAO's just value $4,253,633 or $206.00/sf. 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 29-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, property record card, Costar property information on subject with photographs. PET developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from Costar, with details for each rent comparable. PET provided a chart on capitalization rates. PET provided the Sales Comparable approach and provided comparable improved sales in chart form. PET included portions of 193.011 FS, as well as bulletin PTO 11-01, and form DR-493. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 22 rents from Costar of industrial buildings in close proximity to the subject. The space ranges from 11100-sf to 9,000-sf, the rents range on a triple net basis from $15.00 to $20.00/sf. PET estimated a market rent of $18.00/sf on 20,696-sf for a gross income of $372,528. PET estimated a vacancy of 4.9% for subject or $18,626. The effective gross income (EGI) is $353,902. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 5% of EGI or $35,426 and reserves at 3% of EGI or $10,617. The net operating income (NOI) is $307,859. PET provided retail cap rates from CoStar national surveys in the range of 7.6% to 7.9%. PET estimated a cap rate of 7.75% PET capitalized the NOI of $307,859 at 7.75% for an estimated value of $3,972,375, less 15% COS indicates a value of $3,376,519 or $163.14/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 sales of industrial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from December 2023 to October 2024. The sales range in building size from 11,200-sf to 52,000-sf. The buildings were built from 1979 to 2000. PET adjusted for cost of sales, the sales range from $99.12/sf to 2025-00452 Page 4 of 6 $203.05/sf. PET indicated sales # 3 at 28,466-sf sold for $203.05/sf (after COS) in January 2024 and Sale # 7 at 39,529-sf, sold December 2023 for $184.93/sf (after COS) , these sales are most comparable to the subject. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's operating expenses at 13% including reserves is high for a triple net lease where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. PET's cap rate at 7.75% is high. PAO indicated PET's sale #2 that sold for $99.12/sf was a private sale and sold below market. PET's sales # 4 and # 5 was one transaction that sold for $17,000,000 or $204.00/sf. PET indicated PAO's cap rates for 2nd tier industrial warehouses is at 7.9% and the national surveys has cap rates mostly in the 7% range. PET indicated some of PAO's improved sales in the market analysis section, not the sales comparison section, of PAO's report indicated a lower value on some sales. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the two approaches to value. PET's expenses are high for a triple net lease; PET's cap rate is high at 7.75%; the industrial market in Naples has a low vacancy and demand is high; a cap rate at 7.75% would indicate the subject is a high risk property and there are no indications as such. PAO provided cap rates from local sales that indicate a cap rate in the range of 4.00% to 7.22% with a mean of 5.93% and a median of 5.70%. PAO indicated PAO's sales # 1, 6, 7,8 and 10 are similar in size to the subject, these sales have a mean of $242.25/sf and a median of $216.75/sf, after deduction for COS; the subject is at $206.00/sf. 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 2025-00452: Florida Law allows 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 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 2025-00452 Page 5 of 6 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00452 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00456 Parcel ID 29331180612 Petitioner name KEITH HOUSTON Property 1285 CREEKSIDE BLVDE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 50,830,055.00 50,830,055.00 50,830,055.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 50,830,055.00 50,830,055.00 50,830,055.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 50,830,055.00 50,830,055.00 50,830,055.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/01/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/03/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00456 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00456: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by Jonathan Marchman of Bakertilly who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $50,830,055. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 1285 Creekside Blvd, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a 189,922 SF Class A Multi -tenant Medical Office building in good condition. The subject was built 2015 and has a land area of 189,922 square feet. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail, Sales Comparison Approach with supporting details and an Income Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $591016,380, Sales Comparison Approach of $61,249,300 and Income Approach of $601315,977. The Just Market Assessed Value is $50,830,055 which is 85% of the concluded market value of $59,899,509 in the PAO evidence. The Cost Approach was supported with six land sales indicating a land value of $6,647,270 or $35 PSF for the subject's 189,922 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $46,122,166, plus impact fees of $970,000, entrepreneurial incentive of $5,276,944 and no Lease Up Cost. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $59,016,380. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $344 to $754 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $700 PSF which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $611249,300. The next approach to value is the Income Approach. In this approach the Property Appraiser provided discussion of how the potential rental income for the property was estimated as well as how the vacancy and collection loss was calculated. The appraiser 2025-00456 Page 2 of 4 considered a market NNN rent of $55 PSF NNN with vacancy of 6.0% which is reasonable based on the comparable properties presented. Effective operating expenses were estimated and there was information provided as a basis for these expenses at 10% for the subject property. Next, the capitalization rate was provided at 6.75% and the support for this was also discussed. The summary indicates that the value conclusion by the Income Approach is $60,315,977. In conclusion the packet contained a final reconciliation which included a brief paragraph relative to each of the three approaches to value. The Property Appraiser reconciled these three value estimates to provide a market value estimate of $59,899,509. The Property Appraiser noted the subject property last sold 1/19/2022 for $66,000,000. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included a 2025 Pro Forma Income Valuation. The income approach provided an actual contract rent estimate of $3,947,366 or $45.36 PSF, less operating expenses of 10% and a cap rate 7.0% indicating a value of $50,751,849 less 15% cost of sale for an indication of $43,139,071. Market Data also included 19 comparable sales properties with sales prices from $14 PSF to $895.92 PSF with one cap rate indicator of 5.96%. Three sales were highlighted with one being the sale of the subject property. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted that the actual leases utilized in the analysis are older contract rents and not reflective of current Fee Simple value. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00456: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing the 2025-00456 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00456 Page 4 of 4 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00457 Parcel ID 36864600102 Petitioner name BAY ATLAS PROPERTIES INC Property 487 27THSTNW The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34120 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,268,924.00 1,268,924.00 1,268,924.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,199,299.00 1,199,299.00 1,199,299.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,199,299.00 1,199,299.00 1,199,299.00 *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 10/23/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/24/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00457 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00457: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Robert Epperson. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $1,268,924. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00457 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00458 Parcel ID 64614080009 Petitioner name BAY ATLAS PROPERTIES INC Property 1083 OLD MARCO LN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,564,171.00 2,564,171.00 2,564,171.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,201,830.00 2,201,830.00 2,201,830.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,201,830.00 2,201,830.00 2,201,830.00 *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 10/23/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/24/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00458 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00458: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Robert Epperson. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $2,564,171. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00458 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00459 Parcel ID 14022880003 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 20 3RD STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 6,876,747.00 6,876,747.00 6,876,747.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,264,986.00 5,264,986.00 5,264,986.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,264,986.00 5,264,986.00 5,264,986.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/19/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00459 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00459: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Alexander Caldwell and Kevin Rivero of Maxwell, Hedry & Simmons who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $6,876,747. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 20 3rd Street N, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a High Value III quality two-story single-family residence with a pool area. The subject was built in 2015 with an effective age of 2020 and has a base area of 2,193 square feet and 4,170 adjusted square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $7,371,533 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $7,194,652 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $6,876,747. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the sales approach with four vacant land sales and five residual land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $3,790,786 or $379.08 PSF for the subject's 10,000 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $3,426,747 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $154,000 with impact fees of $0. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $7,371,533. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on five comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $1,551 PSF to $2,180 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $1,725 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $7,195,000. 2025-00459 Page 2 of 3 The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach and provided information on six improved properties. After time adjustments and cost of sale adjustments, the sales provided a value indication range from $5,260,700 to $5,761,000 and the Petitioner concluded at $5,518,000. In cross examination the Property Appraiser noted that all of the comparable sales were adjusted for land size difference at $100 PSF when the subject land value is closer to $375 PSF. T The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner placed sole emphasis on the sales comparison approach. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00459: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00459 Page 3 of 3 F10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00467 Parcel ID 16811560008 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 4100 RUM ROW The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 22,908,986.00 22,908,986.00 22,908,986.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 21,137,163.00 21,137,163.00 21,137,163.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 21,137,163.00 21,137,163.00 21,137,163.00 *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 12/11/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/12/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00467 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00467: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Steve Csaki. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. Alexander Caldwell and Mr. Kevin Rivero, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $22,908,986. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a high quality two-story single-family dwelling, with pool area and dock, located on the water. The base building area is 5,921-sf, the under -air area is 10,305-sf, with an adjusted building size of 10,901-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 44,431.2-sf or 0.89 acres. The property was built in 2006, with an effective age of 2006. The property last sold July 2017 for $12,200,000. The property is located at 4100 Rum Row, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00467 Page 2 of 6 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 46 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for the history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, excerpts from the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 vacant land sales in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to April 2024. The lots range in size from 26,136-sf to 43,995.E-sf. The sales range in value from $317.25/sf to $463.68/ sf. PAO adjusted land sales for time of sale and; and cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $375.41/sf x 44,431.2-sf = $161679,961. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $397,000, impact fees are estimated at $35,973; depreciated building cost is estimated at $8,468,846; the land value is estimated at $16,679,961 for a total cost of $25,581,780. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2023 to November 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 6,552-sf to 10,405-sf and adjusted building size of 7,233-sf to 11,625-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 25,264.8-sf to 41,817.6- sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2009 to 2024. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 0-0% to -5% and; for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $2,401.00 to $3,022.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $2,635.00/sf and a median of $2,515.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $2,515.00/sf of building area including land on 10,901-sf or $27,415,000 rounded. 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 2025-00467 Page 3 of 6 with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET's evidence consisted of a 15-page report, and included a cover page, overview of pertinent information, a comparable improved sales chart, summary of Florida Stature 193.011, disclosure and attestation, location map of subject and sales, aerial view and photographs and a summary of market trends and conditions. PET presented a 7-page rebuttal. PET's rebuttal evidence addresses the adjustment differences to all of PAO's comparable sales; the median sales price for zip code 34102 from 2017 to 1/2025. PET provided a revised comparable sales chart of their sales. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the Sales Comparison approach, and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to November 2024. The sales range in building size from 5,189-sf to 9,404-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 24,829-sf to 38,768-s£ The buildings were built from 1999 to 2018. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 %/month from the date of sale to the date of value and for cost of sales at -15%. PET adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, number of bathrooms, porches, spa and patios, condition, and dock/lift. The adjusted sales range from $14,808,000 to $18,840,150 with an average of $16,647,483 and a median of $161419,300. PET reconciled at $16,530,000. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. Following is the summary of differences in adjustments to value between PAO and PET, as provided by PET. Time Adjustment-PAO provided a 19-page market analysis which indicates a drop in value of 5% for single family homes in 2024, PET provided a chart indicating a decline in 2024 of 23.9% and used -1 % decline per month. PAO indicated the luxury market, which includes the subject, remains robust due to the location of the subject in Port Royal where the market is not affected by massive market shifts; the number of sales has decreased but values have remained stable. SM is of the opinion PET's decline in market value is overstated. Land-PAO provided 4 vacant land sales. Sale # 1 sold in April 2024 for $463.68/sf and is similar in size to the subject at 43,995.E-sf, Sale # 4 contains 26,136-sf and sold April 2024 for $421.49/sf, both these sales are located close to the subject. Sale # 1 has more water frontage than the subject; and sale # 4, which could account for the higher price/sf 2025-00467 Page 4 of 6 paid for sale#1. Both sales have more water frontage than the subject. PAO reconciled a value of $375.41 for the subject and used $325.00/sf for the difference in land size on the sales. PET did not provided land sales or support for the $150.00/sf difference in land size. PET indicated paired sales indicates a contributory value of surplus land at 30% to 40% of excess land. PET used 46% of excess land value for the subject. See analysis below. Building size difference- PAO applied the depreciated cost estimate to the difference in size at $764.00/sf. PET used $600.00/sf with no support. Age/Quality/Condition- PAO provided one adjustment for these three factors, PET adjusted for condition only. PET's condition adjustment is overstated. Features- difference is minimal. SM has adjusted PAO's sales # 1 to 3 which are the most comparable to the subject. PET's sales # 3 is PAO's # 2 and PET's sale # 4 is PAO's sale #1. SM adjusted PAO's land adjustment at 50% of the $325.00/sf to $162.50/sf for the difference in land size. The adjusted price/sf of the sales using 50% of PAO's land adjustment ranges from $2,121.98/sf to $2,364.55/sf with a mean of $2,222.76/sf and a median of $2,181.71/sf. SM has applied the median of $2,181.74/sf to 10,901-sf for an indication of value of $23,783,174.00, which is higher than the just value of $22,908,986.00. Following is a summary of SM's analysis. PAO # 1 PAO #2 PAO #3 Adjusted Sale Price $26,189,864 $26,246,258 $28,583,065 LOT at 50% less of PAO-$2,40600-$311141540-$2071058 Adj Price $23,783,174 $23,131,718 $25,776,008 Adj Price/sf $2,181.74 $2,121.98 $2,364.55 Average $2,222.76 Median $2,181.74 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 2025-00467: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00467 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00467 Page 6 of 6 F10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00468 Parcel ID 24769906324 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 3351 SANDPIPER WAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 840,436.00 840,436.00 821,730.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 840,436.00 840,436.00 821,730.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 840,436.00 840,436.00 821,730.00 *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 12/11/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/12/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00468 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00468: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Steve Csaki. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. Alexander Caldwell and Mr. Kevin Rivero, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $8401436. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling, with pool area. The base building area is 2,336-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,733-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 9,890-sf or 0.2 acres. The property was built in 2004, with an effective age of 2004. The property sold July 2025 for $735,000 after the date of value of 1/l/25. The property is located at 3351 Sandpiper Way, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, 2025-00468 Page 2 of 6 in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 39 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for the history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, excerpts from the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. PET provided as rebuttal 25 pages which consists of an aerial of the subject and aerials of PAO's comparable sales; interior photographs of the subject; and interior photographs of PAO's comparable sale # 1. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 4 residual land sales in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to November 2024. The lots range in size from 6,000-sf to 8,491-sf. The sales range in value from $54.00/sf to $73.00/sf. PAO adjusted land sales for time of sale; cost of sales at -15%; and depreciated building value. PAO reconciled the land value at $52.00/sf x 9,890-sf = $5101240. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $34,000, impact fees are estimated at $35,090; depreciated building cost is estimated at $328,628; the land value is estimated at $510,240 for a total cost of $907,958. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to August 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,822-sf to 2,370-sf and adjusted building size of 2,220-sf to 3,253-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 6,000-sf to 8,491-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2002 to 2006. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 0-1% to -4% and; for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $301.00 to $355.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $317.00/sf and a median of $317.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $317.00/sf of building area including land on 2,733-sf or $865,000 rounded. 2025-00468 Page 3 of 6 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 consisted of a 15-page report, and included a cover page, overview of pertinent information, a comparable improved sales chart, summary of Florida Stature 193.011, disclosure and attestation, location map of subject and sales, aerial view and photographs. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the Sales Comparison approach, and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from November 2023 to February 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,822-sf to 2,252-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 6,000-sf to 14,037-sf. The buildings were built from 2002 to 2005. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 %/month from the date of sale to the date of value and for cost of sales at -15%. PET adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, number of bathrooms, porches, spa and patios, condition, and guest house. The adjusted sales range from $612,300 to $705,450 with an average of $651,650 and a median of $641,500. PET reconciled at $647,000. As rebuttal, PAO provided 25 pages which consists of an aerial of the subject and aerials of PAO's comparable sales; interior photographs of the subject; and interior photographs of PAO's and PET's comparable sale #1. PAO's Sale # 1 is most similar to the subject in age, building and land size. PAO indicated the subject has been renovated by photos provided, and condition and age is similar to Sale # 1, PAO did not take subject renovations into account (new kitchen and flooring) as no permits were acquired for the renovation on the subject, the effective age with renovations is estimated by PAO at 2008; PAO indicated PET made a-$100,000 adjustment for condition for Sale #1, and this adjustment is not warranted. PAO's Sale # 2 (PET's # 4) is similar in land and building size to the subject but has an inferior view -not on a lake. PAO included the area of the guest quarters in the total area of the building, PET separated the guest quarters. PET's Sales # 5 & 6 are disqualified sales. PAO used $51.76/sf for the difference in land size as an adjustment. As rebuttal, PET's indicated the major difference is the land adjustment. PET indicated PAO is not making an adjustment for the contributory value of the surplus land accurately, PAO's value at $51.75/sf for the difference in size is the full value of the lot size, PET indicated the surplus land has a lesser value due to the fact that it cannot be sold separately, and has limited use. PET indicated the total land value should not exceed 25% to 40% of the total property value. PET indicated shared Sale # 1 is the most comparable to the subject. 2025-00468 Page 4 of 6 Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PET indicated the total land value should not exceed 25% to 40% of the total property value and that PAO is not making an adjustment for the contributory value of the surplus land accurately; PET did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant an adjustment to PAO's land value. SM adjusted PAO's adjusted price/sf after time and cost of sales adjustments and made adjustments for spa, porches and lot size; for sale # 1 no age adjustment was made as both sales are similar in age with renovations to the subject. PAO's adjustment for the difference in land size for sale # 2 is at $104.12/sf and the remaining sales are at $52.00/ sf. SM adjusted this sale at $52.00/sf for the difference in land size. The adjusted sales have an average of $303.52/sf and a median of $300.67. SM has estimated a value of $300.67/sf on 2,733-sf or $821,730 rounded. Following is a summary of SM's adjustments. PAO # 1 PAO #2 PAO #3 PAO #4 Adj Price/sf $762,950 $635,905 $719,483 $558,248 Age-$41,298 $43,022-$33,186 $38,731 Spa-$10,000 $0-$10,000-$10,000 Porches-$10,000 $101000 $10,000 $10,000 Bldg Size $0 $29,078 $12,962 55868 Lot $72,399 $841611 $201,308 $1881008 Adj Price $774,051 $802,616 $900,567 $840,855 Adj Price/sf $283.22 $293.68 $329.52 $307.67 Average $303.52 Median $300.67 Value Est. $300.67 $8211730 PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00468: 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 2025-00468 Page 5 of 6 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 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). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $821,730 rounded. 2025-00468 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00471 Parcel ID 12986400000 Petitioner name KATHY L BIGHAM REV TRUST Property 210 BAY PT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34103 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 10,069,880.00 10,069,880.00 10,069,880.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,069,880.00 10,069,880.00 10,069,880.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,069,880.00 10,069,880.00 10,069,880.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00471 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00471: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Petitioner did not submit their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020 The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Gary Price of Fifth Avenue Family Office who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $10,069,880. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 210 Bay Point, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a High Value III quality one-story single-family residence with a pool area and dock. The subject was built in 2024 with an effective age of 2024 and has a base area of 3,832 square feet and 4,890 adjusted square feet on a 0.39 acre lot. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $10,703,538 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $11,072,627 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $10,069,880. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the sales approach with four land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $6,170,467 or $363.70 PSF for the subject's 19,966.00 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $4,216,610 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $282,891 and impact fees of $33,570. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $10,703,538. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $2,134 PSF to $2,335 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $2,264 per square 2025-00471 Page 2 of 3 foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $11,073,000. The Petitioner did not provide evidence. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided no market value support. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00471: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00471 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00475 Parcel ID 00308760000 Petitioner name MICHAEL CLARK Property 1220 KAPOK The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34117 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,154,310.00 1,154,310.00 1,154,310.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,154,310.00 1,154,310.00 1,154,310.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,103,588.00 1,103,588.00 1,103,588.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00475 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00475: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by the property owner Michael Clark who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $1,154,310. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 1220 Kapok St, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a good quality one- story single-family residence with a pool area, caban, rooftop patio and metal storage building. The subject was built in 2023 and has a base area of 2,397 square feet and 3,404 adjusted square feet on a 5.0 acre lot. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $1,286,942 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $111741380 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $1,154,310. The Cost Approach land value was supported with three land comparable sales. The sales indicated a land value of $255,000 or $51,000 per acre for the subject's 5.0 acres. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $929,310 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $77,498 and impact fees at $25,134. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $11286,942. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on three comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $295 PSF to $346 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $345 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $1,174,380. 2025-00475 Page 2 of 3 The Petitioner did not provide evidence. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided no market value support. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00475: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00475 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00476 Parcel ID 00438680209 Petitioner name NATHAN MANDLER Property 7675 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34114 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 17,470,771.00 17,470,771.00 17,470,771.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 17,470,771.00 17,470,771.00 17,470,771.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 17,470,771.00 17,470,771.00 17,470,771.00 *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 12/19/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/29/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00476 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00476: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Spencer Tew, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $17,470,771. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one and two-story, Class C-good retail neighborhood shopping center, with a two story medical office building occupied by NCH, as the anchor tenant. The building area is 65,846-sf the land size has a gross area of 383,328-sf or 8.8 acres. The building was built in 2018. The property was reported at 90% occupancy as of January 1, 2025. The property last sold in September 2019 for $26,500,000. The property is located at 7675 Collier Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 137 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed 2025-00476 Page 2 of 6 description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, confidential rent comparables, market data support and 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 5 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from February 2022 to December 2024. The land sales range in size from 434,729-sf to 1,433,137-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $12.91/sf to $28.87/sf. The mean of all the sales is $21.84/sf and the median is $22.10/sf. PAO indicated Sales # 3 and 4 are developed with retail uses and are the most comparable. PAO reconciled a value at $20.00/sf x 383,328-sf or $7,666,560. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, and profit is estimated at $12,590,299, impact fees at $1,127,000, the land value is estimated at $7,666,560, entrepreneurial profit at $2,025,686, plus lease -up of $698,670 indicates a total cost of $24,108,214. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $20,491,982. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of properties in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from August 2023 to November 2024. The sales range in building size from 56,827-sf to 288,313-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 5.25 acres to 33.49 acres; with a land to building ratio ranging from 13% to 25%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 17%. The buildings were built from 1977 to 2023. The unadjusted sales range from $140.00 to $451.00/sf, with a mean of $259.00/sf and a median of $222.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $325.00/sf of building area including land on 65,846-sf or $211399,950. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $181189,957. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of office and retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of physical address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from Costar, a national real estate market data survey company. PAO provided rents for anchor tenants, office space, junior anchor tenants and in -line tenants. The rents in Florida for anchor tenants range from 20,000-sf to 51,000-sf and the rents 2025-00476 Page 3 of 6 range from $9.15/sf to $25.00/sf with a mean of $16.93/sf and a median of $16.00/sf. The anchor tenant at the subject is NCH, a medical office use. PAO provided office rents in Naples in buildings that range from 3,644-sf to 36,957-sf and range in rents from $21.00/sf to $56.68/sf with a mean of $31.45/sf and a median of $29.23/sf. PAO estimated a rent of $25.00/sf for the office anchor/medical tenant on 23,052-sf for a potential gross rent of $576,300. Costar Junior rents in Florida range in size from 5,000-sf to 18,200-sf and the rents range from $9.00/sf to $22.00/sf with a mean of $15.81/sf and a median of $15.75/sf. PAO did not include junior tenants at the subject. Costar in -line rents in Naples range in size from 300-sf to 3,642-sf and the rents range from $13.00/sf to $58.00/sf with a mean of $29.08/sf and a median of $27.37/sf. PAO estimated a rent of $25.00/sf for the in -line tenant on 27,002-sf for a gross potential rent of $675,050. PAO estimated the restaurant at $30.00/sf on 15,792-sf for a potential gross income of $4731760. The total potential gross income from all sources is $1,725,110. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for shopping centers in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 5.3%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.9% to 5.3%. The vacancy at the subject is reported to be 10% PAO estimated a vacancy of 10% for the subject or $172,511 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $1,552,599. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 4.0% and reserves at 6.0% for a total expense at 10% of effective gross income or $155,260. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,397,339. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from office sales throughout Florida, with some sales in Naples and Fort Myers. The sales occurred from February 2023 2024 to February 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.25% to 8.25% with a mean of 6.91% and a median of 6.82%. PAO provided the cap rate for office buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as LSI Collier County Retail, CRE consultants, Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC. The average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.55% to 8.2% with an average of 6.87%. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.75%. The NOI of $1,397,339 capitalized at 6.75% indicates a value of $20,701,320 less tangible property of $11.00 for a value of $20,701,309. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $17,596,113. 2025-00476 Page 4 of 6 PAO's just value $17,470,771. 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 283-pages which consisted of a cover page, property description and summary, property record card, and aerial of subject. PET provided the Income Approach, with an income proforma and market data for rents, vacancy rates, and capitalization rates. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales in chart form. PET provided form DR-493, and portions of 2025 Value Adjustment training manual modules 4 and 6. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 18 retail market rents from Costar, in Collier county; the rents range from $9.00 to $25.00/sf triple net. PET estimated a market rent for the retail space at $25.00/sf on 42,070-sf for a gross rent of $1,051,750. PET provided 8 office rents from Costar, in Collier county; the rents range from $14.00 to $18.00/sf triple net. PET estimated a market rent for the office space at $18.00/sf on 231227-sf for a gross rent of $418,086. The potential gross income is $1,469,836. PET estimated a vacancy of 10% for subject or $146,984. The effective gross income is $1,322,852. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses and reserves at 10% of EGI or $132,285. Net operating income (NOI) is $1,190,567. PET provided cap rates from national surveys such as Costar, Viewpoint, RERC, Newmark, Realty Rates in the range of 6.75% to 9.85%. PET estimated a cap rate of 6.75%. PET capitalized the NOI of $1,190,567 at 6.75% for an estimated value of $17,638,032, less 15% COS indicates a value of $14,992,327 or $230.00/s£ PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 3 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from November 2022 to May 2024. The sales range in building size from 27,000-sf to 256,507-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 123,144-sf to 1,061,557-sf. The buildings were built from 1994 to 2006. PET adjusted 2025-00476 Page 5 of 6 for cost of sales at -15%, the unadjusted sales range from $192.00 to $247.00/sf, with a mean of $219.00/sf. The just value is at $265.00/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's rent comparables are non -anchor, older centers in inferior secondary locations to the subject, some rents are in industrial areas; PET's rent for the medical office space at $18.00/sf is low. PAO indicated PET's improved sales # 1 and 2 are inferior to the subject; sale # 3 is an older sale and more comparable to the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. The main difference between PAO and PET's analysis is the office rental rate, PET's rent is low at $18.00/sf for a medical office space, PET used rents from inferior locations. 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 2025-00476: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00476 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00479 Parcel ID 17010360008 Petitioner name NATHAN MANDLER Property 751 GALLEON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 12,135,958.00 12,135,958.00 12,135,958.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,914,065.00 9,914,065.00 9,914,065.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,914,065.00 9,914,065.00 9,914,065.00 *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. Lorraine Dube Lorraine Dube 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00479 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00479: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Ms. Leah Fletcher, agent for the owners of subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $12,135,958. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a canal waterfront, two-story single-family dwelling, with pool and dock, located in the Port Royal subdivision. The base building area is 4,499-sf, the under -air area is 5,914-sf, with an adjusted building size of 6,545-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 22,651.2-sf. The property was built in 2009, with an effective age of 2015. The property is located at 751 Galleon Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00479 Page 2 of 5 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 34 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. As rebuttal, PAO provided a chart, which graphs property values in three neighborhoods, which include Port Royal, where the subject is located, and Aqualane Shore and Royal Harbor, where some of PET's sales are located. PAO provided excerpts from the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines adopted in 2002 from Florida Department of Revenue. PET did not object to PAO's presentation of this evidence. 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 subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to April 2024. The lots range in size from 26,136-sf to 43,995-sf. The sales range in value from $317.25/sf to $463.68/sf. PAO deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $375.41/sf x 22,651.2-sf = $8,5031510. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $301,000 and impact fees are estimated at $35,974; depreciated building cost is estimated at $4,774,318 the land value is estimated at $8,503,510 for a total cost of $13,614,802. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 3 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from March 2024 to June 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 6,615-sf to 8,395-sf and adjusted building size of 7,233-sf to 8,360-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 20,908.8-sf to 25,264.8-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2001 to 2009. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -3% to -4%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $1,581.00/sf to $2,647.00/ sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $2,197.00/sf and a median of $2,364.00/sf 2025-00479 Page 3 of 5 of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $2,197.00/sf of building area including land on 6,545-sf or $14,382,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 240-page report, and included a cover letter, property summary, property record card, and aerial of subject. PET included a comparable sales chart, DR form 493, Property Tax Oversight Bulletin PTO- 11-01, cost of sale information with memorandums of law FS 193.011 (8), Florida Department of Revenue Advisory memo regarding implementing the VAB uniform handling of Cost of Sale (COS) deduction, various income models submitted by various counties, excerpts from Module 4 and 6 VAB training material. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 6 sales that sold from February 2024 to March 2025. The sales range in building size under -air from 3.864-sf to 5,334-sf, the land size ranges from 17,424-sf to 26,136-sf, the year -built ranges from 1998 to 2019. These properties sold from $2,148/sf to $2,594/sf, after the cost of sale adjustment of -15% the sales range from $1,826/sf to $2,205/sf with an average of $1,989/sf. PET made no adjustments for time of sale, difference in size or quality. PET estimated a value for the subject at $2,000/sf on 4,499- sf, which is the size of the first floor only. If the total under -air square footage for the subject is applied at 5,914-sf the indicated value is $11,828,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's sales # 1 and # 3 are located in Royal Harbor, an inferior neighborhood; PAO provided a chart, which graphs property values in three neighborhoods which include Port Royal, where the subject is located and Aqualane Shore and Royal Harbor, where some of PET's sales are located. The value indicated in Royal Harbor are lower than in Port Royal. PET's sales # 5 and # 6 are disqualified sales. As rebuttal, PET indicated PET's sale # 2 is on the same street as the subject, and PET's sale # 4 is a shared sale with PAO. PET indicated these two sales support a lower value than the current estimated value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach and made appropriate adjustments for the differences in the properties. PET provided 6 sales, two of which are disqualified and two are located in inferior neighborhoods. PET made no adjustments for 2025-00479 Page 4 of 5 differences in the properties as compared to the subject, PET's sale on the same street as the subject and the shared sale are older properties and would require an upward adjustment. PET based the value of the square footage of the first floor at 4,499-sf and not 5,914-sf which includes the upper level. 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 2025-00479: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00479 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00526 Parcel ID 74937501802 Petitioner name HORTH, EMILY WESLEY Property 4363 The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ NAPLESFL taxpayer's address , FL 34119 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,134,485.00 993,760.00 791,520.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,134,485.00 993,760.00 791,520.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,083,763.00 943,038.00 740,798.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 11/17/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/18/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00526 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00526: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner was represented by property owners, Emily and Wesley Horth. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has been revised prior to the hearing at $993,760. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 4363 Aurora Street, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a good quality one-story single-family residence with a patio area. The subject was built in 2018 and has a base area of 2,213 square feet and 2,615 adjusted square feet on a 11,727 square foot lot. The property last sold on April 8, 2024 for $970,000. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $1,089,661 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $996,955 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $993,760. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the extraction method of the improved sales. The sales indicated a land value of $703,072 or $59.96 PSF for the subject's 11,712 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $313,589 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $731000. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $11089,661. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties, Sale #1 is the most recent sale of the subject property. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $303 PSF to $408 PSF. The Property Appraiser 2025-00526 Page 2 of 5 correlated to a market value of $381 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $997,000. The Property Appraiser also presented a one -page analysis that the assessment is based on mass analysis and no weight is placed on any one sale in the Property Appraisers evidence package on Page 32. This was in defense of why the subject sale, which was a qualified sale and transpired on April 8, 2024, was not utilized as the market value. The subject sale is utilized as a comparable in the Sales Approach Analysis and given equal consideration as the other 3 sales utilized. In analyzing market data on a unit basis such as price per square foot of land or building, sales of similar properties will occur across a spectrum or range of prices. Our responsibility in mass appraisal is to determine a fair or just value for all properties in that market group. To do this, we generally will rely on the median of the sales distribution, because it best represents the "typical" price within that set. This approach necessarily means the following: Homes that sold at the low end of the range will, out of necessity, be assessed above what the buyer paid. This does not mean the property is assessed at an un-fair value, it simply means the buyer purchased below the fair market value determination of the Property Appraiser. Homes that sold at the high end of the range will be assessed below what the buyer paid. In either circumstance the indication is not that the property is over- or under -valued. It simply reflects that the assessment is based on fair market value for the group —rather than the price of one sale. The goal is equity and uniformity, ensuring all properties are assessed consistently at their fair market value, rather than at individually negotiated prices. Not every sale represents the fair market value conclusion for the entire market. Our role in mass appraisal is to reconcile all sales into a single, equitable conclusion of value that applies fairly across the board. Think of each sale as a puzzle piece. By itself, it shows a fair market price for that property. But mass appraisal requires us to put all the pieces together to see the full picture — and that's where the reconciled fair market value comes from. Fair Market Price (or Sale Price): The actual price paid for an individual property in an arm's-length transaction between a willing buyer and willing seller. This is one piece of market evidence —not automatically proof of value on its own. Fair Market Value (or Just Value in Florida law): The appraiser's conclusion of value after analyzing and reconciling all relevant fair market prices (sales), adjusted as needed for differences. It represents the most probable price, not necessarily the exact price of any one sale. It furthermore indicates that careful consideration of the eight criteria in F.S. 193.011 has been made, centering assessments around a median ratio of 0.85 The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence. The Petitioner provided information on several sales that transpired in the subject neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods in the North Naples market area which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner noted the 30 subject comps they presented in the subject neighborhood all have assessed values significantly below prices paid in 2024. The Magistrate informed the Petitioner that assessed value ratios cannot be considered relevant evidence in the analysis of the subject market value. The Petitioner further explained that this data also shows how the subject property is smaller in building square foot than the average and the subject land 2025-00526 Page 3 of 5 is larger in square footage than the average in the subject neighborhood. The Petitioner further analyzed the subject land value assessment and noted it looks over assessed based on the subject's unique configuration compared to the rest of the neighborhood. The Petitioner goes on to explain that the subject shape and view is inferior to how the property is being valued. Although the assessment analysis was not considered relevant the data presented was considered relevant and credible in considering the Petitioners statement that specifically they were trying to illustrate that the subject land is overvalued. The Petitioner noted that they don't have a desirable backyard with an inferior lakeview to the comparable sales that are not similar shaped lots. The Petitioner noted that they felt a fair market value should be near $700,000. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser stated they have lowered the assessment from its original assessment to its current revised amount at $993,760. This included the 0.85 factor applied in the land value analysis indicating a unit value of $59.95 PSF for the subject land. The Property Appraiser further stated that the analysis considered the unique characteristics of the subject property. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided several sales in the neighborhood to illustrate that the subject land value is overstated. Based on the information in the Property Appraiser's package, the subject sale itself on Page 21 of the analysis shows an extracted land value of $40.75 PSF, significantly less than the land value utilized in both the Cost Approach and to adjust in the Sale Approach. Based on the information presented, the Subject's Sale #1 and its value indication noted in the Sales Grid on Page 24 of the Property Appraiser's analysis would be the best indicator of market value for the subject property at $791,520. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00526: The Special Magistrate sought legal advice from VAB Counsel with regards to this petition on the issue of Property Appraiser's applied analysis. This was in defense of why the subject sale, which was a qualified sale and transpired on April 8, 2024, was not utilized as the market value. The subject sale is utilized as a comparable in the Sales Approach Analysis and given equal consideration as the other three sales utilized. While the statement provided by the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) is sufficient to aid in the retention of the presumption of correctness, you as the Special Magistrate have the ultimate authority to decide whether or not to revise the value that the PAO is defending. Florida law allows 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 2025-00526 Page 4 of 5 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. The Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by the Property Appraiser at the hearing Section 194.301. Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value of $791,520 Rule 12D-9.027 F.A.C. Therefore, the petition is granted. 2025-00526 Page 5 of 5 F10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00529 Parcel ID 12931200006 Petitioner name SETH LUBIN, ESQ Property 2790 LEEWARD LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,862,359.00 3,862,359.00 3,862,359.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,862,359.00 3,862,359.00 3,862,359.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,862,359.00 3,862,359.00 3,862,359.00 *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 10/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00529 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00529: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Robert Epperson. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $3,862,359. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00529: 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.]. 2025-00529 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00530 Parcel ID 11180360002 Petitioner name JAMES F MOREY Property 1190 9THThe petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 STN representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,934,778.00 2,934,778.00 2,934,778.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,641,429.00 1,641,429.00 1,641,429.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,641,429.00 1,641,429.00 1,641,429.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/18/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00530 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00530: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by James Morey who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $21934,778. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 1190 9th Street North, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements are considered interim in nature with the highest and best use for redevelopment. The subject has a land area of 22,500 SF or 0.52 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information for each address and folio number which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. The analysis included a Sales Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value via the Sales Approach of $3,937,500. The Just Market Assessed Value is $2,934,778 which is 74.5% of the concluded market value of $3,937,500 in the PAO evidence. The land value was supported with ten land sales indicating a land value of $3,937,500 or $175 PSF for the subject's 22,500 square feet. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Analysis stating the property will be losing money during its redevelopment process and demolition process which has yet to start as the property is still in its permitting stages. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Approach to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by 2025-00530 Page 2 of 3 the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00530: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00530 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00531 Parcel ID 11180400001 Petitioner name JAMES F MOREY Property 1100 9THThe petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 STN representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 19,028,699.00 19,028,699.00 19,028,699.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 19,028,699.00 19,028,699.00 19,028,699.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 19,028,699.00 19,028,699.00 19,028,699.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/18/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00531 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00531: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris DelPo, MAI CFE, while the Petitioner, was represented by James Morey who was present via a conference call hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $19,028,699. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F. S. The 1 st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition is located at 1100 9th Street North, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements are considered interim in nature with the highest and best use for redevelopment. The subject has a land area of 152,300 SF or 3.50 acres. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information for each address and folio number which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. The analysis included a Sales Approach with supporting details. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value via the Sales Approach of $22,845,000. The Just Market Assessed Value is $19,028,699 which is 83.3% of the concluded market value of $22,845,000 in the PAO evidence. The land value was supported with ten land sales indicating a land value of $22,845,000 or $175 PSF for the subject's 152,300 square feet. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The package included an Income Analysis stating the property will be losing money during its redevelopment process and demolition process which has yet to start as the property is still in its permitting stages. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Approach to value. The Property Appraiser supplied a copy of their most recent DR-493, reporting a 15% cost of sale deduction during their mass appraisal process meeting the requirement of considering the eighth criterion of Florida Statute Section 193.011. The Petitioner provided an inferior analysis compared to the Property Appraiser's analysis. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by 2025-00531 Page 2 of 3 the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00531: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-0053 ] Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00532 Parcel ID 19463000023 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 252 3RD AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 6,263,133.00 6,263,133.00 6,263,133.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,739,562.00 5,739,562.00 5,739,562.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,739,562.00 5,739,562.00 5,739,562.00 *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 11/23/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/24/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00532 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00532: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. Alexander Caldwell and Mr. Kevin Rivero, agents for the owner of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $6,263,133. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling, with pool area, located in Olde Naples. The base building area is 1,947-sf with under -air of 4,336-sf, the adjusted building size is 4,297-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .17 acres or 7,500-sf. The property was built in 2022, with an effective age of 2022. The subject property sold December 2022 for $6,850,000.The property is located at 252 3rd Avenue S. Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the 2025-00532 Page 2 of 5 analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 32 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for history for the subject, impact fee calculation and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from July 2023 to May 2024. The lots range in size from 14,782-sf to 19,500-sf. The sales range in value from $344.42/sf to $427.25/sf. PAO adjusted the land sales for time of sale; and by deducting for cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $372.43/sf x 7,500-sf = $21793,231. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $223,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $3,623,133; the land value is estimated at $2,793,231 for a total cost of $6,639,364. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to December 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 3,458-sf to 5,583-sf and adjusted building size of 3,352-sf to 5,882-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 7,500-sf to 15,000-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2016 to 2023. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -0% to -4%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $1,362.00 to $1,885.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $1,634.00/sf and a median of $1,587/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $1,587.00/sf of building area including land on 4,297-sf or $6,818,000 rounded. 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. 2025-00532 Page 3 of 5 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET's evidence consisted of an 11-page report, and included a cover page, overview of pertinent information, a comparable improved sales chart, summary of Florida Stature 193.011, disclosure and attestation, location map of subject and sales, aerial view and photograph of subject and summary of market trends and conditions. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented a 7-page rebuttal, which was rejected by PAO. PET's rebuttal evidence contained new information not submitted in a timely manner before the hearing. PET's rebuttal evidence was not accepted nor admitted into evidence. PET provided the Sales Comparison approach, and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from December 2022,(the sale of the subject) and the remaining sales occurred from February 2024 to December 2024. The sales range in building size from 3,456-sf to 4,432-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 7,500-sf to 10,400-sf. The buildings were built from 2016 to 2023. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 %/ month from the date of sale to the date of value and for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, location, lot size, building size, number of bathrooms, porches and patios, and additional features. The adjusted sales range from $4,956,700 to $5,944,875 with an average of $5,513,421 and a median of $5,550,925. PET reconciled at $5,532,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's Sale # 1, the sale of the subject property was a disqualified sale, this property sold to a related party. PAO indicates some of PET's sales are in inferior locations to the subject when adequate sales occurred in 2024 closer to the subject. PAO indicated PET's time of sale adjustment is high at -1 %/month for subject neighborhood. As rebuttal, PET's opinion is that Collier county's method of calculating the square footage of the building is flawed and results in a higher value for the property, also, PAO's land sales are not comparable to the subject in size and location. PAO's improved sale #2 is close to the beach and not comparable. PET indicated some of PAO's sales are better quality than the subject. PAO's sale # 3 and PET's sale # 2 are shared. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO made adjustments for the differences in the properties. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach and PAO and PET share PAO's sale #3. PET used sales in inferior locations to the subject. PAO's sale 1,3 and 4 are in similar locations to the subject and SM considers these sales most similar to the subject and required the least adjustments; these sales range in adjusted value from $1,362/sf to $1,639.00/sf with a 2025-00532 Page 4 of 5 mean of $1,532.00, when applied to the subject's 4,297-sf indicates a value of $6,583,000 rounded, which supports the just value of $6,263,133. 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 2025-00532: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00532 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00533 Parcel ID 56317101248 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 350 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,546,850.00 2,546,850.00 2,233,800.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,546,850.00 2,546,850.00 2,233,800.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,546,850.00 2,546,850.00 2,233,800.00 *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 12/05/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00533 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00533: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. Alexander Caldwell and Mr. Kevin Rivero, agents for the owner of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,546,850. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium unit, located on the 8th floor of an 18-floor building, with beach front and ocean views. The unit is located in Madeira on Marco Island a Condominium. The unit has an area of 2,523-sf. The unit sold in May 2025 (after the date of value of 1/l/25) for $2,250,000, PAO indicated this was as estate sale. The property was built in 2006. The property is located at 350 S Collier Boulevard, Unit # 807, Marco Island Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 2025-00533 Page 2 of 5 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 49 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, general and property information, Limiting Conditions and Assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, property rights appraised, definition, scope of appraisal, trim notice, deed of the property with legal description, aerial and location maps, site plan, floor plan and subject photographs. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with unit location in the building, floor plan and location map of the site and the sales. PAO included two active listing in subject building. PAO included F.S. 689.261-Sale of residential property; disclosure of ad valorem taxes to prospective purchaser. F.S. 193.1554- and F.S. 193.155. PAO included excerpts of the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, adopted in 2002 from the Florida Department of Revenue and Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines - property tax oversight. 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 presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved unit sales, in subject building. The building was built in 2006. The units sold from February to March 2024. The units range in size from 2,631-sf to 3,303-sf. PAO made adjustments for time of sale at 0.70%/month or a minus adjustment of -6.3% to -7%; PAO adjusted for cost of sale at -15%. PAO indicates Sale # 2 was remodeled in 2025 at a cost of $250,000. Sale # 3 sold with furniture estimated at $650,000, which was deducted from the sale price. PAO did not adjust for condition or floor location. The adjusted sales range from $1,022.00/sf to $1,191.00/sf with a mean of $1,097.00 and median of $1,102.00. PAO estimated a value of $1,102.00/sf for the subject or $2,780,346. PAO provided 3 sales of units that sold from May 2025 to September 2025, for trending purposes; the units range in size from 2,523-sf to 3,539-sf and sold in the range of $892.00 to $1,554.00/sf. PAO made no adjustments to these sales. PAO did not place emphasis on the 2025 sales, nor did Special Magistrate. PAO did not establish the presumption of correctness. PAO failed to take into consideration the condition of the subject unit, FS 193.011 (6). PET presented a report containing 14-pages, and included a cover page, overview of pertinent information, a comparable improved sales chart, summary of Florida Stature 193.011, disclosure and attestation, location map of subject and sales, aerial view and photograph of subject and summary of market trends and conditions. PET provided 4 pages of rebuttal, which consisted of interior photographs of PAO's sale # 1 and the listing history for the subject. 2025-00533 Page 3 of 5 PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated PAO's and PET's sale # 1 is a shared sale. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved unit sale. The sales occurred from February 2024 to May 2025 (the sale of the subject unit). The buildings were built from 1981 to 2006. PET used 4 sales in other buildings along the beach on Marco Island Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 %/month from the date of sale to the date of value and for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, floor location at $30,000/floor, quality at $150.00/sf, condition at $76.00/sf and size at $300.00/sf. The adjusted sales range from $1,809,863 to $1,967,625 with an average of $1,893,933 and a median of $1,887,275. PET reconciled at $1,890,000 rounded. As rebuttal, PAO indicated 4 of PET's sales are in buildings inferior to the subject. PAO indicated the sale of the subject was an estate sale. PAO indicated the subject building is newer than most of PET's sales. PAO indicated there were enough sales in subject building, PET did not need to look for sales in other buildings. PET's time adjustment is based on single family home sales and not condominium sales on Marco Island. As rebuttal, PET provided 11-pages which consisted of interior photographs of PAO's sale # 1 showing the superior condition of the unit. PET indicated PAO's sales # 2 and 3 are disqualified sales and that Sale # 2 was not listed on the multiple listing service. PET provided the listing history for the subject showing the unit was listed for sale in October 2024 for $3,299,000 with price decreases to $2,499,000 and sold May 2025 for $212501000. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate sales, in subject complex. PAO did not take into consideration the condition of the subject unit, PAO's sales are superior in condition to the subject. PET provided one shared sale with PAO and three other sales from 2024 which are not in subject building. SM did not consider sales from 2025. PET's time adjustment or market trends and conditions are based on single family homes and not condominiums and the adjustment of -1 % month is considered high. SM adjusted PAO's sales -all located in subject building- and adjusted for time of sale and cost of sales, SM made adjustments for quality and condition at $150/sf of unit size (SM included the condition and quality of the unit in this estimate), floor height at $30,000/floor and the difference in size at $300.00/sf, the support for these adjustments were from PET's evidence. Following is SM's adjusted sales. Quality & PAO's Sale Size Time & COS Condition Floor height Size Adjusted Adj Price/ Number SF Adj $150/sf $30,000/floor $300/sf dif Price SF 2025-00533 Page 4 of 5 1 2631 $21687,700-$394,650-$60,000-$32,400 $2,200,650 $836.43 2 3303 $31905,544-$4951450-$90,000-$234,000 $310861094 $934.33 3 3291 $31265,445-$4931650 $150,000-$230,400 $2,691,395 $817.80 4 3740 $414531351-$561,000 $2101000-$3651100 $3,737,251 $999.26 Subject 2523 Average $896.96 Median $885.38 Value Estimate $885.38 $212331814 SM has revised the value and applied the median price/sf of $885.38 to 2,523-sf for an indicated value of $2,233,800 rounded. 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00533: 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. The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PAO did not take into consideration the condition of the subject as compared to the sales provided. PAO did not establish the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $2,233,800. 2025-00533 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00536 Parcel ID 14000280007 Petitioner name MAXWELL, HENDRY & SIMMONS, LLC Property 71 18THAVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 22,640,918.00 22,640,918.00 22,640,918.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 18,509,032.00 18,509,032.00 18,509,032.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 18,509,032.00 18,509,032.00 18,509,032.00 *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 11/18/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/20/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00536 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00536: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were Mr. Alexander Caldwell and Mr. Kevin Rivero, agents for the owner of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $221640,918. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling, with a two-story guest house. The base building area is 3,216-sf, the adjusted building size is 3,503-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The guest house is 864-sf with an adjusted area of 1,482- sf. The land size is .95 acres and has 150 feet of frontage on the Gulf of America. The property was built in 1951, with an effective age of 2015. The subject property is currently listed for sale at $44,000,000; the property was originally listed for $36,500,000 in November 2022 and has not sold. The property is located 71 18th Avenue S. Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in 2025-00536 Page 2 of 5 Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for history for the subject, impact fee calculation, a chart showing seasonal increase and decrease in value of properties from 2019 to 2025. PAO included the subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. PAO provided as rebuttal, a depth factor chart for beach front properties. 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 subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2023 to December 2023. The effective front footage (EFF) of the sales range from 80 feet to 145.5 feet. The sales range in value from $166,841.28/FF to $181,687.5/FF. PAO adjusted the land sales for time of sale at -5%; and by deducted for cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $174,106.05/FF x 132 FF (effective) _ $22,981,999. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $55,000 and impact fees are estimated at $35,973; depreciated building cost is estimated at $860,818; the land value is estimated at $22,981,999 for a total cost of $23,933,790. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and provided a value for the land only based on the 4 land sales provided above at $22,982,000 rounded. 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 consisted of an 18-page report, and included a cover page, overview of 2025-00536 Page 3 of 5 pertinent information, a comparable improved sales chart, summary of Florida Stature 193.011, disclosure and attestation, location map of subject and sales, aerial view and photographs of subject and summary of market trends and conditions. PET included a vacant sales versus improved sales analysis. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented a 7-page rebuttal, which was rejected by PAO. PET's rebuttal evidence contained new information not submitted in a timely manner before the hearing. PET's rebuttal evidence was not accepted nor admitted into evidence. PET provided the Sales Comparison approach, and included 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2023 to June 2025. The sales range in building size from 945-sf to 5,227-sf, the land size for these sales range from 12,750-sf to 37,897-sf The buildings were built from 1930 to 2017. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 %/ month from the date of sale to the date of value and for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, number of bathrooms, quality, condition, garage, pool, porches, patios, and additional features. The adjusted sales range from $17,337,000 to $20,541,525 with an average of $19,375,465 and a median of $191553,500. PET reconciled at $19,460,000 rounded. At the hearing, PET revised the value to $20,500,000, which PAO rejected. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's analysis is on a price/sf and PAO's analysis is on a front foot(FF) basis. PAO provided, as rebuttal, a depth factor chart to take into consideration the depth of the lots and the factors multiplied by the front footage provides an effective front footage for the site. PAO provided the effective FF for each of PAO's sales and provided a price/FF for each sale that ranges from $165,000 to $181,687.50/EFF. PAO indicated PET's sale # 1 was the sale of multiple properties and was a disqualified sale. Sale # 2, the 945-sf house was demolished in 2024 and is essentially a land sale, also, this sale is after the date of value. Sale # 3 is a June 2025 sale that occurred after the date of value of 1/l/2025. Sale # 4 is not a beach front property and not comparable to the subject. Sale # 5 is an older sale that has been recently listed for sale at $39,000,000. As rebuttal, PET disputed PAO's depth factor chart and time of sale adjustment. PET made the offer to change their value from $19,460,000 to $20,500,000, which PAO did not accept. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO provided a land value only at $22,981,999 and an improved value at $231933,790. PAO placed emphasis on the land value at $22,982,000 rounded. PET 2025-00536 Page 4 of 5 provided a value based on improved sales and land sales, PET's time of sale adjustment at 1 %/month is high, two of PET's sales are after the date of value and one sale is not a waterfront property. The subject property is listed for sale at $44,000,000 and one of PET's sales is listed at $39,000,000. PAO's value appears to be supported. 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 2025-00536: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00536 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00537 Parcel ID 59960003486 Petitioner name MIFFLIN, DENISE L, FREDERICK J MIFFLIP Property 15344 MILAN LN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,749,080.00 3,749,080.00 3,749,080.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,937,108.00 1,937,108.00 1,937,108.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,937,108.00 1,937,108.00 1,937,108.00 *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 11/18/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/20/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00537 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00537: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Frederick Mifflin, owner of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,749,080. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling, with pool area, located in Mediterra subdivision. The base building area is 4,117-sf with an adjusted building size of 4,658-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .47 acres or 20,859.98-s£ The property was built in 2002, with an effective age of 2010. The property is located at 15344 Milan Lane, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, 2025-00537 Page 2 of 5 in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 29 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for history for the subject and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2024 to September 2024. The lots range in size from 10,075-sf to 13,280-sf. The sales range in value from $113.53/sf to $141.49/sf. PAO adjusted the land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and for cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $128.05/sf x 20,859.98-sf = $2,671,125. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $87,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,141,582; the land value is estimated at $2,671,125 for a total cost of $3,899,707. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2024 to September 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 2,986-sf to 3,210-sf and adjusted building size of 3,523- sf to 4,064-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 10,075-sf to 13,280-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2002 to 2018. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1% to -5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $780.00 to $851.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean and median of $815.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $815.00/sf of building area including land on 4,658-sf or $3,796,000 rounded. 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. 2025-00537 Page 3 of 5 PET's evidence consisted of a 31-page report, and included a 4-page memo with a sales chart and 27 pages which include the details of the 13 sales provided. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET, in their memo indicated properties used for analysis should be zero lot line villas in similar neighborhoods in Mediterra, PET indicated market prices are inflated by inclusion of a golf membership for specific properties and; age of construction is not taken into account in notice of proposed property taxes. PET provided 13 sales that occurred from January 2024 to February 2025, and range in year of construction from 2003 to 2023. The sales range from 2,915-sf to 3,756-sf of under air space, the subject has 4,117-sf. PET indicated the average price/sf for these sales at $876.00 (Special Magistrate (SM) calculated the average of these sales at $881.38/sf. ) PET deducted $300,000 for the golf membership from the sale price of 4 properties that PET indicated were sold with a golf membership; PET indicated the average for all the sales excluding the golf membership is $847.00, (SM calculated these sales at an average at $851.92/sf). PET also provided the average pre-2011 construction sales at $855.00/sf with the golf membership included and $823.00/sf without the golf membership. As rebuttal, PAO indicated conversations with a realtor familiar with sales in Mediterra indicated the golf membership is sold separately and the sale price on the county documents are for the real estate only and do not include a golf membership. PAO indicated a perspective purchaser, of a property in Mediterra with a golf membership can decline the membership and still purchase the property. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's sales 11 2, and 4 included a golf membership when sold. PET indicated the golf membership option is driving up the price of homes due to a limit on golf memberships in the development. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO made adjustments for the differences in the properties. PAO made large adjustments for the building size, the subject property is about 1,000-sf bigger than any of PAO's sales; PAO made a large adjustment for land size, the subject is 7,579-sf to 10,784-sf larger than any of the sales. PET provided 13 sales of properties of various ages, and building size; three of PET's sales are the same as PAO's sales. PET made no adjustments for the differences in the properties; the subject is larger than any sale provided by PET. The golf membership is not real property and is not included in the sale price of real estate. PET indicated they have a golf membership in Mediterra and if the subject property were to be sold and they move out of the community a prospective purchaser has the option of purchasing the golf membership on the subject property. PAO's sales 11 2 and 4 sold with a golf membership, similar to the subject's golf 2025-00537 Page 4 of 5 membership. PAO's sales provide good support for the value conclusion. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00537: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00537 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00540 Parcel ID 29606000061 Petitioner name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. Property 600 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 352,825.00 352,825.00 352,825.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 352,825.00 352,825.00 352,825.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 352,825.00 352,825.00 352,825.00 *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 12/18/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/29/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00540 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00540: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Jason Block and Mr. Spencer Tew, agents for the owner of the subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. It was agreed by both PAO and PET that petitions number 2025-00540 and 2025-00570 be heard together, the same evidence applies to both petitions. PAO described the property as Crystal Shores Condominium Interval Ownership Towers A & B (71 units), Petition # 2025-00540; and Towers C & D (148 units), Petition number 2025-00570. Total 219 units. The buildings are adjacent, are multi -level and the unit sizes provided by PAO's sales range from 1,068-sf to 1,105-sf. The property is located on the beach and has several outside pools, spa, fitness center, activity center and three restaurants. Building A & B (71 units) was built in 2009 and contains unit numbers 201 to 1505; building C & D (148 units)was built in 2017-2018 and contains unit numbers 324 to 1522. Total number of units in both buildings is 219 units. The property is located at 600 South Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida. PAO provided the folio number, and just value for each unit. The TRIM value has not changed. The total just value of Buildings A & B(71 units) is $23,093,265 or a combined average unit value of $325,257. The total just value for Buildings C & D(148 units) is $46,702,280 or a combined average unit value of $315,556. The total value of both buildings is $69,795,545 or a combined average value of $318,701/unit. Subject unit 201 has a just value of $352,825. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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 2025-00540 Page 2 of 6 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%. PAO presented a report containing 42 pages. The report included a list of all the subject condominium units with parcel number, unit number and market value, the evidence and witness list, general and property information, property record card, deed of the property with legal description, Crystal Shored Condo Declaration, and building permits for the subject. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and included recent resales of units at the subject and resales at the Charter Club of Marco Beach complex. PAO provided aerials and location maps, plans, subject photographs inside and outside showing the amenities. PAO included F.S. 192.037-Timeshare Real Property; Tax and assessments; escrow; and part of Florida Administrative Code Sec 12D-6.006 As rebuttal, PAO provided 20 pages, which consists of an aerial photograph of the subject and PET's sales buildings; interior and exterior photographs of each of PET's comparables showing the condition of the units, a chart indicating the available amenities at each of the comparables; and a list of PET's sales indicating the comparability of the comparable, which units are quit claim deeds, and which units are buy back units from Marriott at the subject. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO discussed FS 192.037-10 which reads, "In making his or her assessment of timeshare real property, the appraiser shall look first to the resale market." FS 192.037-11 reads "If there is an adequate number of resales to provide a basis for arriving at value conclusions, then the property appraiser shall deduct from the original purchase price "usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale." For purposes of this subsection, usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale for timeshare real property shall include all marketing costs, atypical financing costs, and those costs attributable to the right of a timeshare unit owner or user to participate in an exchange network of resorts. For timeshare real property, such "usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale: shall be presumed to be 50 percent of the original purchase price; provided, however, such presumption shall be rebuttable." PAO indicated the subject was purchased for $58,000,000 in 2006, PAO provided building permits for the subject. PAO provided 5 resales at the subject in 2024. The units range from 1,068-sf to 1,105-sf. The units sold at a range of $7,810 to $46,000/week with a median of $30,000/week and a mean of $28,762/week. PAO estimated the mean value of $28,762/week x 51 week for a value of $1,466,862/week x 71 units (Building A & B)= $104,147,202 x 50% cost of 2025-00540 Page 3 of 6 sales (COS)= $52,073,601 or $733,431/unit. The total just value of all the units is $23,093,265 or an average of $325,257. PAO estimated the mean value of $28,762/week x 51 week for a value of $1,466,862/ week x 148 units (Building C & D)= $217,095,576 x 50%(COS)= $108,547,788 or $733,431/unit. The total just value of all the units is $46,702,280 or an average of $3151556. PAO provided 56 resales at the Charter Club of Marco Beach, a timeshare condominium close to the subject. PAO indicated this project was built in 1982 and is inferior to the subject in age, condition and amenities. The average of the sales is $16,440/week x 51 week for a value of $838,440/week x 71 units (Building A & B)= $59,529,240 x 50% (COS))= $29,764,620 or $419,220/unit. The just value of 71units at the subject is $23,093,265 or an average of $325,257. PAO estimated the mean value of $16,440/week x 51 week for a value of $838,440/week x 148 units (Building C & D)= $124,089,120 x 50%(COS))= $62,044,560 or $419,220/ unit. The just value of 148 units is $46,702,280 or an average of $315,556. The total value of both buildings (219 units) is $69,795,545 or a combined average value of $318,701/unit. 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 provided a 196-page report, which consisted of a cover letter, property summary and summary for each unit number, just value and assessed value. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach with a requested value for each unit. PET provided comparable sales from 5 timeshares near the subject and analyzed the sales. PET provided portions of 2025 Value Adjustment training manual modules 4 and 6. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 421 timeshare sales that sold in 2024 from 5 properties in close proximity to the subject. The sales indicate a median price of $10,500/week, which PET applied to the subject and indicates a value of $10,500/week x 51 weeks x 71 units(Building A & B)= $38,020,500 less 50% COS indicates a value of $19,010,250 or $267,750/unit(Just value is $318,701/unit). The same value applied to Building C & D indicates a value of $39,627,000 after the 50% COS or $267,750/unit(Just value is $318,701/unit). PET provided an analysis of the sales, excluding the sales at the subject, and provided 379 sales with an average value of $10,000/unit/week. PET applied the 10,000/week x 2025-00540 Page 4 of 6 51 weeks x 71 units= $36,210,000 less 50% COS indicates a value of $18,105,000 or $255,000/unit(Just value is $318,701/unit), (Building A & B). The same value applied to Building C & D indicates a value of $37,740,000 after the 50% COS or $255,000/unit (Just value is $318,701/unit). PET applied values in the range of $5,500/unit/week to $11,750/unit /week to subject units, these values indicate a reduction from 6% to 56% in value for the subject. As rebuttal, PAO provided 20 pages, which consists of an aerial photograph of the subject and PET's sales comparables; interior and exterior photographs of each of PET's comparables showing the condition of the units, a chart indicating the available amenities at each of the comparables; and a list of PET's sales indicating the comparability of the comparable; PAO indicated PET's comparable sale projects were built from 1982 to 1983, the subject was built from 2009-2018. PAO included PET's sales indicating which units are quit claim deeds, and which units are buy back units from Marriott. PAO indicated the age, condition of the subject and amenities at the subject are superior to PET's comparable. PAO indicated PET's comparable Eagle Nest Marco, Surf Club Marco and Club Regency are not comparable to the subject, and all indicate lower unit values. The subject property has the flexibility of renting the units on a nightly basis, which adds value. Many sales provided by PET at the subject were bought back by Marriott. As rebuttal, PET indicated they used all sales recorded at the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided resales at the subject, and a timeshare project nearby that is inferior to the subject. PAO provided photographs of PET's comparables showing the condition, which is inferior to the subject. PET provided various values based on the sale of comparable timeshare units in projects other than the subject, and all sales in these other projects indicate a lower value than the units at the subject, PET did not make adjustments for the differences. PET did not provide a separate value based on the sales at the subject, which indicate higher values. The value from the sales at the subject as provided by PAO indicate an average value of $733,431/ unit based on 50% of the market value, the subject has an average just value of $318,701/ unit which is more than half the market value derived by PAO. 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 2025-00540: 2025-00540 Page 5 of 6 Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00540 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00564 Parcel ID 36180080008 Petitioner name RANDIE YORK O'CONNOR & ASSOCIATE; Property AP DGELN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NLAUREL RI representative APLES, FL 34116 other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 13,214,373.00 13,214,373.00 13,214,373.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 13,214,373.00 13,214,373.00 13,214,373.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 13,214,373.00 13,214,373.00 13,214,373.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/18/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00564 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00564: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Petitioner did not submit evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris Delpo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner indicated a desire to have their petition heard without their attendance however no evidence was submitted. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $13,214,373. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00564: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00564 Page 2 of 2 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00568 Parcel ID 24930400002 Petitioner name BARTO. SABIN Property 2140 HARBORLN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 713,124.00 713,124.00 713,124.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 713,124.00 713,124.00 713,124.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 713,124.00 1 713,124.00 1 713,124.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition 0 Homestead ❑ 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 Petitioner failed to appear and did not indicate that he wanted his evidence considered in his absence. Petitioner failed to show good cause, and no good cause request was pending. 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 The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/11/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/14/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00568 Page 1 of 1 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00569 Parcel ID 38450420008 Petitioner name SMALL BROTHERS LLC Property 13580 OLD LIVINGSTONRD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,231,720.00 2,149,282.00 2,149,282.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,231,720.00 2,149,282.00 2,149,282.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,231,720.00 2,149,282.00 2,149,282.00 *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 10/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00569 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00569: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioner (PET) was Riley Small, owner of subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,149,282. The TRIM value has changed from $2,231,720. The just value was changed during the hearing based on new evidence provided by PET that a portion of the building valued as finished is currently unfinished space. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling, with a three -car garage, located in the Livingston Woods subdivision. The base building area is 1,680-sf (main floor) and the under -air area, including the 2nd floor is 3,360-sf, with an adjusted building size of 5,008-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 2.36 acres. The property was built in 2022, with an effective age of 2022. It was discovered at the hearing that 1,680-sf of the 3,360-sf under air area is unfinished space, with a concrete floor and unfinished drywall. The property is located at 13580 Old Livingston Road, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of 2025-00569 Page 2 of 6 cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 32 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO included a vacant land sales by neighborhood analysis. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to August 2024. The lots range in size from 1.14 acres to 2.73 acres. The sales range in value from $418,855.68/acre to $793,608.4/acre. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and PET deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $508,776.73/acre x 2.36 acres = $1,200,713. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $95,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,228,720 the land value is estimated at $1,200,713 for a total cost of $2,524,433. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to August 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 2,128-sf to 4,084-sf and adjusted building size of 2,286-sf to 5,037-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 1.14 acres to 2.73 acres. The buildings have an effective age from 1979 to 2024. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -2 to -5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $442.00/sf to $630.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $531.00/sf and a median of $527.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $527.00/sf of building area 2025-00569 Page 3 of 6 including land on 5,008-sf or $2,638,000 rounded. PAO indicated the subject was listed for sale in May 2023 for $5,500,000 but did not sell. PET indicated the sale price of $5,500,000 included the subject building as well as a new home to be built. 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 consisted of a 23-page report, and included a cover e-mail letter, detailed construction costs for the improvements, a summary of the cost including land. PET provided information on 4 improved sales and two email to the value adjustment board. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided the actual costs of developing the subject. The land was purchased 2/22/2019 for $390,000, the detailed cost of the building was $970,195 less cable bills, electricity bills, water bills, furniture and property taxes, the cost is $884,697.78. The total cost in the property including land is $1,274,698. PET provided 4 sales that sold from January 2023(one sale) to June 2025 (3 sales) and range is land size from 1.14 acres to 2.56 acres; the buildings range in size from 1,404-sf to 2,831-sf, the total adjusted area for these sales ranges from 1,561-sf to 5,545-sf. These properties sold from $800,000 to $1,650,000 or $479.61 to $698.00/sf of residential area and $297.56/sf to $627.80/sf of total area (PET provided the just value for these properties in the range of $477.81/sf to $653.73/sf, with an average of $514.85, based on the residential finished square footage). PET made no adjustments for differences in the properties. PET estimated the value by the sales based on the 2024 appraised value(or just value) at $1,721,675 PET reconciled the final value of the subject at $1,420,662. PET indicated the first floor of the residential portion is used as storage and is unfinished space, with a concrete floor and unfinished drywall. The only finished space is the second floor 1,680-sf. PAO made an adjustment based on the fact that the first floor is not livable space at - $82,438 and reduced the just value of $2,231,720 by this amount to $2,149,282.00 or $429.17/sf. PET did not agree with this new value. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject land was purchased in February 2019 and values have increased significantly since that date, PET's construction cost is not a contract, the 2025-00569 Page 4 of 6 building was built by the owner, who is a builder. PAO indicated building costs have increased since the building was built and the cost provided by PET is understated. PET's improved sales are mostly 2025 sales when the market was lower than the date of value of 1 / 1 /2025. PET made no adjustments for the differences in land and building sizes and these are older buildings and PET made no adjustment for the age, quality and condition. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. Two sales are in subject neighborhood and two are outside the neighborhood, PAO indicated sales are limited due to the size and value of the properties in the area. PET provided the actual costs for the subject and these costs are dated, PET estimated the value by the sales comparison approach on the 2024 just value of the sales provided and not on the actual sale amount; also, PET made no adjustments to the improved sales provided for differences in 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. SM has accepted PAO's revised value of $2,149,282 based on the fact that the first floor of the residential portion is used as storage and is unfinished space. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00569: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. 2025-00569 Page 5 of 6 Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00569 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00570 Parcel ID 29606001523 Petitioner name NATHAN MANDLER, ESQ. Property 600 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 388,960.00 388,960.00 388,960.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 388,960.00 388,960.00 388,960.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 388,960.00 388,960.00 388,960.00 *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 12/30/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/02/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00570 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00570: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Carla Allegro and Ms. Marie Cannan. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Jason Block and Mr. Spencer Tew, agents for the owner of the subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. It was agreed by both PAO and PET that petitions number 2025-00540 and 2025-00570 be heard together, the same evidence applies to both petitions. PAO described the property as Crystal Shores Condominium Interval Ownership Towers A & B (71 units), Petition # 2025-00540; and Towers C & D (148 units), Petition number 2025-00570. Total 219 units. The buildings are adjacent, are multi -level and the unit sizes provided by PAO's sales range from 1,068-sf to 1,105-sf. The property is located on the beach and has several outside pools, spa, fitness center, activity center and three restaurants. Building A & B (71 units) was built in 2009 and contains unit numbers 201 to 1505; building C & D (148 units)was built in 2017-2018 and contains unit numbers 324 to 1522. Total number of units in both buildings is 219 units. The property is located at 600 South Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida. PAO provided the folio number, and just value for each unit. The TRIM value has not changed. The total just value of Buildings A & B(71 units) is $23,093,265 or a combined average unit value of $325,257. The total just value for Buildings C & D(148 units) is $46,702,280 or a combined average unit value of $315,556. The total value of both buildings is $69,795,545 or a combined average value of $318,701/unit. Subject unit 314 has a just value of $388,960. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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 2025-00570 Page 2 of 6 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%. PAO presented a report containing 42 pages. The report included a list of all the subject condominium units with parcel number, unit number and market value, the evidence and witness list, general and property information, property record card, deed of the property with legal description, Crystal Shored Condo Declaration, and building permits for the subject. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and included recent resales of units at the subject and resales at the Charter Club of Marco Beach complex. PAO provided aerials and location maps, plans, subject photographs inside and outside showing the amenities. PAO included F.S. 192.037-Timeshare Real Property; Tax and assessments; escrow; and part of Florida Administrative Code Sec 12D-6.006 As rebuttal, PAO provided 20 pages, which consists of an aerial photograph of the subject and PET's sales buildings; interior and exterior photographs of each of PET's comparables showing the condition of the units, a chart indicating the available amenities at each of the comparables; and a list of PET's sales indicating the comparability of the comparable, which units are quit claim deeds, and which units are buy back units from Marriott at the subject. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO discussed FS 192.037-10 which reads, "In making his or her assessment of timeshare real property, the appraiser shall look first to the resale market." FS 192.037-11 reads "If there is an adequate number of resales to provide a basis for arriving at value conclusions, then the property appraiser shall deduct from the original purchase price "usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale." For purposes of this subsection, usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale for timeshare real property shall include all marketing costs, atypical financing costs, and those costs attributable to the right of a timeshare unit owner or user to participate in an exchange network of resorts. For timeshare real property, such "usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale: shall be presumed to be 50 percent of the original purchase price; provided, however, such presumption shall be rebuttable." PAO indicated the subject was purchased for $58,000,000 in 2006, PAO provided building permits for the subject. PAO provided 5 resales at the subject in 2024. The units range from 1,068-sf to 1,105-sf. The units sold at a range of $7,810 to $46,000/week with a median of $30,000/week and a mean of $28,762/week. PAO estimated the mean value of $28,762/week x 51 week for a value of $1,466,862/week x 71 units (Building A & B)= $104,147,202 x 50% cost of 2025-00570 Page 3 of 6 sales (COS)= $52,073,601 or $733,431/unit. The total just value of all the units is $23,093,265 or an average of $325,257. PAO estimated the mean value of $28,762/week x 51 week for a value of $1,466,862/ week x 148 units (Building C & D)= $217,095,576 x 50%(COS)= $108,547,788 or $733,431/unit. The total just value of all the units is $46,702,280 or an average of $3151556. PAO provided 56 resales at the Charter Club of Marco Beach, a timeshare condominium close to the subject. PAO indicated this project was built in 1982 and is inferior to the subject in age, condition and amenities. The average of the sales is $16,440/week x 51 week for a value of $838,440/week x 71 units (Building A & B)= $59,529,240 x 50% (COS))= $29,764,620 or $419,220/unit. The just value of 71units at the subject is $23,093,265 or an average of $325,257. PAO estimated the mean value of $16,440/week x 51 week for a value of $838,440/week x 148 units (Building C & D)= $124,089,120 x 50%(COS))= $62,044,560 or $419,220/ unit. The just value of 148 units is $46,702,280 or an average of $315,556. The total value of both buildings (219 units) is $69,795,545 or a combined average value of $318,701/unit. 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 provided a 196-page report, which consisted of a cover letter, property summary and summary for each unit number, just value and assessed value. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach with a requested value for each unit. PET provided comparable sales from 5 timeshares near the subject and analyzed the sales. PET provided portions of 2025 Value Adjustment training manual modules 4 and 6. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 421 timeshare sales that sold in 2024 from 5 properties in close proximity to the subject. The sales indicate a median price of $10,500/week, which PET applied to the subject and indicates a value of $10,500/week x 51 weeks x 71 units(Building A & B)= $38,020,500 less 50% COS indicates a value of $19,010,250 or $267,750/unit(Just value is $318,701/unit). The same value applied to Building C & D indicates a value of $39,627,000 after the 50% COS or $267,750/unit(Just value is $318,701/unit). PET provided an analysis of the sales, excluding the sales at the subject, and provided 379 sales with an average value of $10,000/unit/week. PET applied the 10,000/week x 2025-00570 Page 4 of 6 51 weeks x 71 units= $36,210,000 less 50% COS indicates a value of $18,105,000 or $255,000/unit(Just value is $318,701/unit), (Building A & B). The same value applied to Building C & D indicates a value of $37,740,000 after the 50% COS or $255,000/unit (Just value is $318,701/unit). PET applied values in the range of $5,500/unit/week to $11,750/unit /week to subject units, these values indicate a reduction from 6% to 56% in value for the subject. As rebuttal, PAO provided 20 pages, which consists of an aerial photograph of the subject and PET's sales comparables; interior and exterior photographs of each of PET's comparables showing the condition of the units, a chart indicating the available amenities at each of the comparables; and a list of PET's sales indicating the comparability of the comparable; PAO indicated PET's comparable sale projects were built from 1982 to 1983, the subject was built from 2009-2018. PAO included PET's sales indicating which units are quit claim deeds, and which units are buy back units from Marriott. PAO indicated the age, condition of the subject and amenities at the subject are superior to PET's comparable. PAO indicated PET's comparable Eagle Nest Marco, Surf Club Marco and Club Regency are not comparable to the subject, and all indicate lower unit values. The subject property has the flexibility of renting the units on a nightly basis, which adds value. Many sales provided by PET at the subject were bought back by Marriott. As rebuttal, PET indicated they used all sales recorded at the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided resales at the subject, and a timeshare project nearby that is inferior to the subject. PAO provided photographs of PET's comparables showing the condition, which is inferior to the subject. PET provided various values based on the sale of comparable timeshare units in projects other than the subject, and all sales in these other projects indicate a lower value than the units at the subject, PET did not make adjustments for the differences. PET did not provide a separate value based on the sales at the subject, which indicate higher values. The value from the sales at the subject as provided by PAO indicate an average value of $733,431/ unit based on 50% of the market value, the subject has an average just value of $318,701/ unit which is more than half the market value derived by PAO. 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 2025-00570: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For 2025-00570 Page 5 of 6 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00570 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00571 Parcel ID 59937002546 Petitioner name MASTRIANNI, JOHN J, MARY ELIZABETH I Property 6949 BENT GRASSDR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34113 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,241,728.00 1,241,728.00 1,241,728.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,241,728.00 1,241,728.00 1,241,728.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,191,006.00 1,191,006.00 1,191,006.00 *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 10/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00571 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00571: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were John and Mary Elizabeth Mastrianni, owners of subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,241,728. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling, with pool, located in the Lely Resort subdivision. The base building area is 1,987-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,411-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 13,939.2-sf. The property was built in 2004, with an effective age of 2004. The property sold December 2023 for $1,000,000. The property is located at 6949 Bent Grass Drive, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, 2025-00571 Page 2 of 5 in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO's presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 5 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to May 2024. The lots range in size from 6,534-sf to 11,325.6-sf. The sales range in value from $55.62/sf to $80.17/sf. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and PET deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $66.79/sf x 13,939.2-sf = $9301933. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $32,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $321,741 the land value is estimated at $930,933 for a total cost of $1,284,674. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2024 to May 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,672-sf to 2,400-sf and adjusted building size of 2,119-sf to 2,808-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 6,534-sf to 11,325.6-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2003 to 2005. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 to -5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $507.00/sf to $564.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $534.00/sf and a median of $525.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $525.00/sf of building area including land on 2,411-sf or $1,266,000 rounded. 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 2025-00571 Page 3 of 5 Correctness. PET's evidence consisted of a 3-page report, and included a cover letter and a spreadsheet of neighboring properties indicating the building size and lot size, PET included the 2024 and 2025 land just values and total just values indicating the percentage change over the noted years. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the subject property is on a large lot in the middle of a cul-de-sac and, although the lot is bigger most of the land is not usable, it cannot be built upon. PET provided the land value and total value of 8 properties in subject neighborhood indicating the increase in land value from the year 2024 to 2025 in the range of 24% to 71 % with the subject at 128% increase; the land size for these properties ranges from .15 acres to .36 acres and the subject is the largest at .45 acres. The total just value of these properties increased from 2024 to 2025 from 19% to 36% with the subject increase at 60%. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the just value is based on comparable sales of similar properties that recently sold. PET compared the just value of the land and the just value of the total property and not recent sales in the neighborhood. PAO indicated PAO's sales # 1 to 3 are in subject neighborhood and were adjusted for land size difference at $66.00/ sf which is the value indicated for the subject land. PAO indicated the subject lot is the largest lot and has excellent views of the golf course. PAO indicated all lots were re- assessed in subject neighborhood to indicate current values. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. Three of PAO's sales are on the same street as the subject and have smaller lots for which PAO made an adjustment. PET provided information on 8 properties and compared the current land just values and total values for these properties and not a current sale price of the entire property. PET emphasized and compared the land values and not the value of the total property, the purpose of arriving at a market value is to determine the value of the total property and not one component. 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 2025-00571: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00571 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00571 Page 5 of 5 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00573 Parcel ID 56794600003 Petitioner name GERALD & NANCY DUFRESNE Property 201 WINDBROOK CT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,326,586.00 1,326,586.00 1,326,586.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,326,586.00 1,326,586.00 1,326,586.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,326,586.00 1 1,326,586.00 1 1,326,586.00 *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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/01/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00573 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is the Dufresne Family Trust that owns a residence located at 201 Windbrook Ct., Marco Island, Florida. Petitioner was represented by Gerald and Nancy Dufresne, Co -Trustees of the Trust. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. All parties were sworn. Petitioner prefiled for portability for 2026 and appeals the amount of the homestead assessment difference anticipated by the PAO to be transferrable in 2026 from their prior homestead located at 524 La Peninsula, Naples. The Petition states that $500,000 should be transferred. [PAO Ex. 1, p. 19] Although the PAO has not yet rendered a final decision about the amount of the assessment difference to be transferred in 2026, the former homestead had a Save Our Homes assessment difference of $260,927, had Petitioner takes issue with that amount. [P.Ex. 1, p.4] Originally, Petitioner filed a petition (#2025-90) challenging the assessed value of the former homestead but later withdrew that petition upon learning that they could not challenge an assessed or just value of a previously owned home. [Ybaceta] The stated grounds for the withdrawal are that the portability will be applied in 2026 tax year. [PAO Ex 1, p. 17-28] The subject petition appears to be the same challenge creatively disguised as a portability petition. Petitioner purchased the property at Windbrook Court in March of 2025 and applied for a homestead exemption on May 21, 2025. [PAO Ex. 1, p. 9-11) At the same time, Petitioner applied for the Transfer of Homestead Difference from the La Peninsula Property to the Windbrook Court property. [PAO Ex. 1, p. 12] The prior homestead was sold on or about April 14, 2025. [PAO Ex. 1, p. 13-14] The PAO offered its evidence package consisting of 20 pages and it was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner offered its package which was admitted as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, without objection. The former homestead sold for $1,050,000, but had a just value as of January 1, 2025 of only $755,000. [PAO Ex. 1, p.13; P. Ex. 1, pp.4-5] Petitioner presented comparable sales data from Redfin showing a square footage value ranging from $500/SF to $608/SF. The just value determined by the PAO equates to $343/SF. [P. Ex. 1, pp. 8-24] Conclusions of Law: Petitioner has couched its appeal in terms of a challenge to the transfer of the assessment difference to its new homestead. However, there has been no formal decision by the PAO regarding the transfer, as Petitioner is not eligible for a transfer until next tax year when 2025-00573 Page 2 of 4 the new homestead is established. At that time, the PAO will make a determination of the amount of portability to which Petitioner is entitled. Given the fact that the new property cost more, Petitioner rightly anticipates that the entire assessment difference will transfer. Notwithstanding their attempt to frame the question differently, Petitioner is actually challenging the 2025 just value and assessment difference of its prior homestead under the belief that the prior home was significantly undervalued. Section 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., which governs the transfer of the homestead assessment difference, permits an assessment at less than just value when a person who establishes a new homestead has received a homestead exemption as of January 1 of any of the three immediately preceding years. Because Petitioner did not purchase their new home until March of 2025, they enjoyed the homestead exemption on their prior property for tax year 2025. They cannot have two homestead exemptions in one year, and are therefore not entitled to a homestead exemption on the Windbrook Court property until January, 2026, at which time they will be afforded their right to transfer the assessment difference from the La Peninsula home. Petitioner seeks an adjudication by this Special Magistrate of the correct amount of assessment difference to be transferred in 2026. First, there is no current decision by the PAO that can be reviewed by this Special Magistrate. Second, assuming that the PAO had determined that Petitioner is eligible to transfer the entire $260,927 to the new property, Petitioner is still without a remedy in this proceeding. Section 193.155(8)(i)8 clearly states that "[T]his subsection does not authorize the consideration or adjustment of the just, assessed, or taxable value of the previous homestead property." That is precisely what Petitioner is trying to do. Petitioner's challenge to the assessment difference is founded on their argument that the 2025 just value of the home was understated. If the just value were increased based on Petitioner's evidence, then the assessment difference would be greater and the amount to be transferred in 2026 would increase. However, this Special Magistrate cannot alter the assessment difference without adjusting the 2025 just value of the prior home. While the current owner could appeal the just and assessed value of the property, Petitioner cannot. Only the taxpayer, i.e., the person owning the property, can seek and obtain an adjustment of the just value of a property. In short, Petitioner has no standing to challenge the just value of La Peninsula, directly or indirectly, as they no longer own it. The Special Magistrate does note that the sales price of the property in March, 2025, is credible and persuasive evidence of the just value of 524 La Peninsula. Unfortunately, Petitioner is not in a position to challenge the just or assessed value after it has relinquished ownership of the property. The evidence presented by Petitioner was credible as to the just value of the property but irrelevant to this appeal. This appeal rests on the correct application of the law. Petitioner's argument that s. 193.011, Fla. Stat., requires the consideration of the present cash value of the property, the net proceeds from the sale of the property, and condition 2025-00573 Page 3 of 4 and cost of the property, is sound. And, as noted above, the sales price of this property shows that the just value of the property is likely underestimated. Such argument, however sound, is of no consequence in this appeal as Petitioner cannot argue and challenge value on a portability petition for a property they no longer own. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's decision in this case was wrong. Here, Petitioner attempts to challenge the PAO's just value of the former homestead by characterizing their appeal as one regarding the assessment difference. Such a challenge is not authorized by statute. Petitioner failed to meet their burden of proof, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2025-00573 Page 4 of 4 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00574 Parcel ID 63944000080 Petitioner name STARABILITY FNDN INC Property 2655 NORTHBROOKE DR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,463,368.00 1,463,368.00 1,463,368.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,463,368.00 1,463,368.00 1,463,368.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,463,368.00 1 1,463,368.00 1 1,463,368.00 *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, specif'Yharitable ❑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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00574 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is STARability Foundation, Inc., who owns property located at 2655 Northbrooke Drive, Naples, Florida. This property is comprised of two separately identified tax parcels, and Petitioner appeals the denial of a charitable exemption as to both these parcels. As the evidence applies to both, the parties agreed to consolidate the two petitions for purposes of this hearing and recommendation. Consequently, the recommendations will be largely identical to each other. Petition 574 pertains to the parking area, grounds and greenspace. Petition 678 concerns only the building. Petitioner was represented at the hearing by its CEO, Karen Govern, and its attorney, Tristen Cavanaugh. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. Both Earle and Ybaceta remained under oath from earlier hearings. Ms. Govern was sworn in. The PAO offered its 71-page evidence package which was admitted into evidence, without objection, as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner originally uploaded a 213 page evidence package in ARIA, but offered each exhibit individually from his original evidence package. For purposes of cross-reference, the page numbers from the original packet are included in the parenthetical following the exhibit description. These eleven exhibits were all admitted without objection. P.Ex.I was an email dated 10/08/25 (which was pages 6 -7 of the original evidence upload into ARIA). P.Ex.2 is an email dated 012425 (pages 8-9); P.Ex.3 is an email dated 020425 (pages 15-16); P.Ex.4 is a copy of Staff Minutes from the Kickoff Meeting held on 050825 (pp. 17-20); P.Ex.5 is a Lisa Kahn Designs memo regarding a design meeting held 012825 (pp. 21-22); P.Ex.7 is an email dated 020525 by Govern (pp. 23-25); P.Ex.8 is the Request for Qualifications and Fee Proposals; P.Ex. 9 is the PAO Disapproval (p. 34); P. Ex. 10 is the original application for charitable use (pp. 42-205); P. Ex. 11 is Petition 678 pertaining to the contiguous parcel containing the building. Included in Ex. 11 was the Notice of Disapproval dated April 30, 2025. The Petitioner is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that provides vocational training, continuing education, teamwork, social engagement and community involvement for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. [P. Ex. 10] Southwest Florida Music Education Center, which previously used a portion of the building, merged into STARability Foundation on April 1, 2024. [Govern] Petitioner is an exempt entity under Florida Statute. [Govern; Ybaceta; P. Ex. 10] Petitioner applied for a charitable exemption on October 3, 2024, under s. 196.196, Fla. Stat., for Parcel Nos. 63944000080 and 639440000103 (hereinafter referred to as "the Property"). (P. Ex. 10; PAO Ex. 1, p. 9-12] The application was denied on April 30, 2025 on grounds that the Property was not being used for exempt purposes on January 1, 2025, per the cited provisions of s. 196.196. [P. Ex. 10; PAO Ex. 1, pp. 53-551 The Disapproval was sufficient to advise Petitioner of the basis for denial and met the requirements of s. 196.193(5)(c), Fla. Stat. As such, the Disapproval was valid. 2025-00574 Page 2 of 6 The building was purchased by Petitioner from Hodges University, Inc. in 2024. The Property at the time of sale was subject to a lease with Montessori Academy of Naples, Inc., for the north and south wings of the first floor of the building and the first floor lobby. Although the original lease included 20,393 square feet of the second floor, this portion of the lease expired on June 30, 2021 and Montessori no longer occupies any portion of the second floor. The term of the lease for the first floor runs until June 30, 2030. [PAO Ex. 1, pp.33-34; Govern] The lease was assigned to Petitioner as part of the purchase but the Assignment of Lease was not provided. [Govern] Per Ms. Govern's testimony, the first floor lobby is no longer being leased by Montessori. [Govern] As part of the lease, Montessori has use of the parking areas which are part of Parcel 63944000080. [Govern] Since the Property's purchase, Petitioner has initiated its process to renovate the building. Such renovations are "essential" to the function of the building. [Govern] Petitioner has replaced the roof, HVAC system, installed hurricane windows and changed some of the interior. [Govern] The Design Committee "kicked off' in late January, and a formal Request for Qualifications and Fee Proposals was issued on February 14, 2025. [Govern; P. Ex. 8] In addition to efforts to make the Property suitable for Petitioner's purposes, Petitioner has used the Property in the following manner: conducted social and recreational activities, primarily a Field Day event in August 2024; held three MANDT (crisis intervention) training sessions for a dozen or so employees in September and October of 2024; held meetings with employees on December 13, 2024, and January 22 through 24, 2025; and conducted tours of the Property for potential donors. [Govern] The PAO inspected the Property on November 21, 2024. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, p. 41] Photos did show the erection of a canvass sign announcing the future home of STARability, but the interior rooms, although containing some classroom furniture, did not appear to be in active use. The lobby still contained the Hodges University logo. The PAO again inspected on December 30, 2024, and observed no change in the Property. [Ybaceta] The Property was again inspected on September 18, 2025, and the photos showed the organization of some classroom furniture and a reception desk as well as some office equipment. [PAO Ex. 1, pp. 50-53]. These activities still appear to be preliminary to a full opening. Petitioner's website indicated that Petitioner intends to open its doors in the fall of 2025. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, p. 60] As of the date of the hearing, that had not yet occurred. Conclusions of Law: Unless expressly exempted, all real property in the state is subject to taxation. § 196.001 (1), Fla. Stat. (2005). While certain properties may qualify for an exemption, tax exemptions are highly disfavored and are strictly construed against the party claiming them. See Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 642 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 1994). The 2025-00574 Page 3 of 6 claimant has the burden to show entitlement to tax exemption, and any ambiguity should be resolved against the taxpayer and against exemption. Volusia Cty. v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 1976); Markham v. PPI, Inc., 843 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Section 196.192(1), Fla. Stat., states that "[A]11 property owned by an exempt entity, including educational institutions, and used exclusively for exempt purposes shall be totally exempt from ad valorem taxation." "Use of property for exempt purposes" is defined in s. 196.012(1), Fla. Stat., as "predominant or exclusive use of property owned by an exempt entity for educational, literary, scientific, religious, charitable or governmental purposes as defined in this chapter." Petitioner's application for both parcels was denied because Petitioner was not using the Property for exempt purposes under the statute. In order to qualify as totally exempt from taxation, the owner of the property must be an exempt entity and the use must be an exempt use, as these terms are defined by Florida law. There is no dispute here about Petitioner's non-profit status as a 501(3)(c) private charity under the Internal Revenue Code and that its use for operation of STARability, i.e., providing assistance in the social, developmental and educational needs of disabled individuals, would constitute an exempt use. The dispute is whether this use constitutes the predominate use of the Property. Before resolving the question as to whether the use of the Property was predominately for exempt purposes, the Special Magistrate must first consider whether the PAO's denial is this instance meets the requirements of s. 196.193(5), Fla. Stat. See Rule 12D-9.027 (4), Fla. Admin. Code. Section 196.193(5)(c), states that when notifying a property owner that an application exemption has been denied, "[T]he notification must be drafted in such a way that a reasonable person can understand specific attributes of the applicant or the applicant's use of the subject property which formed the basis for the denial." Due to the overall lack of use of those portions of the building not leased to Montessori and the sporadic use of the parking area and grounds, the statement that the property was not being used for exempt purposes as of January 1 is sufficient to provide Petitioner with the notice required under the statute. Consequently, the Special Magistrate concludes that the denial by the PAO is valid. "Predominate use of property" is specifically defined in 196.012(3) as "use of property for exempt purpose in excess of 50 percent but less than exclusive." This definition would appear to allow Petitioner to lease a portion of the Property to Montessori and still claim a predominate use for exempt purposes, assuming the leased portion does not exceed 50% of the overall property. Interestingly, no evidence was presented to confirm that the first floor use by Montessori does not exceed 50% of the overall property size. However, one can reasonably assume that the first floor and second floors of the building are identical in size. With Petitioner in control of the second floor, first floor lobby and the entire grounds, Petitioner would have use of more than 50% of the Property. Petitioner argues that its planning and maintenance activities are sufficient to constitute a 2025-00574 Page 4 of 6 "use" under the statute. Although Petitioner was not physically using the entire second floor for its operations, it had possession and control, and was maintaining and preparing the Property as of January 1, 2025. [Cavanaugh] Petitioner provided several service contracts for equipment and systems maintenance, grounds maintenance and facilities management. [P. Ex.10] However, maintenance of the building and grounds is not a determinative factor. If maintenance of property were sufficient, a church or school would need only to maintain a property without conducting a single religious ceremony or academic class in order to qualify. This is clearly not the law. As for the planning efforts undertaken by Petitioner, although signficant, those, too, do not constitute a use as contemplated by the statute. As Ms. Ybaceta pointed out in the hearing, the statute does not permit the PAO to consider affirmative steps to develop the property in its determination of use, unlike with other exempt uses should as affordable housing. See, e.g., s. 196.196(5)(a). The Special Magistrate agrees and notes that where the legislature affirmatively amended provisions to permit the consideration of affirmative steps in certain exempt categories, its failure to include these as to charitable uses is deemed intentional and cannot be disregarded. Section 196.196(l ), Fla. Stat., provides some guidance in this determination and states: "(1)In determination of whether an applicant is actually using all or a portion of its property predominately for a charitable ... purpose the following criteria shall be applied: (a) the nature and extent of the charitable... activity of the applicant, a comparison of such activities with all other activities of the organization, and the utilization of the property for charitable... activities compared with other uses. (b) The extent to which the property has been made available to groups who perform exempt purposes at a charge that is equal to or less than the cost of providing the facilities for their use. Such rental or service shall be considered as part of the exempt purposes of the applicant." Here, the use of the word "actually" is telling, and confirms that something more than planning and maintenance activities is required. In reviewing the decisional law addressing questions of whether an "exempt" use of a property is a predominate use, and applying the provisions of s. 196.196(1), it is clear that the activity of the charitable organization is critical in this analysis. Here, Petitioner conducts activities for intellectually and developmentally disabled persons. Naturally these activities require a number of support services in order to occur, such as training of staff and promotion and solicitation of charitable donations. Petitioner presented credible and relevant evidence as to the occurrence of some of these support services in 2024, including staff training on three separate occasions in the fall of 2024, and a large activity day for an estimated 50 participants in August of 2024. (It should be noted that Field Day also served as a core function of Petitioner.) Although the Property was not yet open for the housing of administrative and support staff and the conduct of classes and activities, one cannot say that the foregoing uses were not exempt uses, as they were directly related to, and necessary for the charitable activity conducted by Petitioner. As for the renovations, these did not commence until 2025, and the evidence was 2025-00574 Page 5 of 6 insufficient to show how these renovations were directly related to the core activites of Petitioner. Although Petitioner testified that major repairs were conducted on the building, such as replacement of the roofing and HVAC systems, and replacement of windows, these cannot be said to be directly or exclusively related to the charitable use, as such repairs were typical maintenance for a building. (The same could be said of the planned renovations.) Moreover, this building is also being used for commercial purposes. Hausman v. First Baptist Church, Inc., 513 So, 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) and Robbins v. Fla. Conf. Ass'n of Seventh Day Adventists, 614 So. 2d 893 (Fla 3d DCA 1994) provide some guidance in this regard. These cases dealt with church owned property that was yet undeveloped but sporadically being used for religious purposes, primarily prayer sessions. Here the courts concluded that the use, although not continuous and without improvements, was not incidental to the religious (exempt) purpose and therefore was sufficient as an exempt use of the property. An important factor in these two decisions was the fact that the property was being exclusively used in this manner. The courts did not have to consider the other activities taking place on the property. In short, there was no need for the court to compare these uses with "all other activities of the organization," as mandated by s. 196.196(1), Fla. Stat. This is not the case in this appeal. Because a substantial portion of the Property is being used by a commercial tenant, the sporadic uses made by Petitioner in 2024 must be weighed against the other uses of the Property. As an example, in weighing the use of the parking area and grounds parcel (Petition 574) one cannot say that the conduct of a singular event called Field Day predominates over the daily uses of the parking area by the commercial tenant. In looking at the exempt activities as a whole, they are simply insufficient to constitute a predominant use of the Property. While the Special Magistrate does not believe that class activity must be ongoing as of January 1, 2025, any support services directly related to the charitable use must exceed the half dozen meetings and events that took place. Had interior renovations that were directly related to the core activities of Petitioner begun in earnest in 2024, the result may have been different. The Petitioner had the burden of proof in this proceeding to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of a charitable exemption under s.196.196, Fla. Stat. was wrong. In weighing the totality of the credible and relevant evidence provided by the parties, the Special Magistrate concludes that the evidence was insufficient and Petitioner failed to meet its burden in this proceeding. Therefore, the Special Magistrate recommends that Petition 574 be denied. 2025-00574 Page 6 of 6 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00575 Parcel ID 73246000341 Petitioner name LAWRENCE F GLICK LIVING TRUST Property 14603 NICHOLASWAY The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,531,291.00 1,531,291.00 1,531,291.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,531,291.00 1,531,291.00 1,531,291.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 1 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,480,569.00 1 1,480,569.00 1 1,480,569.00 *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 ❑0ther,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 E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/03/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00575 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is the Lawrence F. Glick Living Trust. Lawrence Glick appeared on behalf of the Trust, as Trustee. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. Ybaceta and Earle were reminded that they remained under oath from earlier hearings. Mr. Glick was sworn in. This appeal concerns the transfer of homestead assessment difference from Petitioner's former homestead after the owners' marriage was dissolved. The PAO offered its 19-page package as evidence and it was admitted, without objection, as PAO Composite Ex. 1. Petitioner offered a 27-page package that was admitted without objection as P.'s Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner made a homestead application on January 31, 2025 and sought to transfer half of the Save Our Homes assessment difference from the former marital home at 684 Il Regalo Circle, Naples, to his new home at 14603 Nicholas Way, Naples, Florida. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, pp.9-10; Glick] Petitioner and his former wife were divorced on October 28, 2022. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, p. 15; Glick] The Marital Settlement Agreement provided that the spouses would split all assets equally, although it did not specifically identify the Save Our Homes (SOH) Savings as an asset. [Glick] Prior to the divorce being final, on October 12, 2022, Glick transferred his interest in the Il Regalo property to his wife by quitclaim deed and legally abandoned the homestead. [PAO Ex. 1, pp.13 -14] The former wife continues to reside in the Il Regalo home and enjoys the homestead exemption. [Ybaceta] As part of the divorce paperwork, Petitioner and his former wife completed Form DR-50ITS, Designation of Ownership Shares of Abandoned Homestead, which shows that each spouse was to receive 50% of the SOH assessment difference. (P. Ex 1, p.4; Glick] The form states that "We designate the percentages above to each owner for transferring the homestead assessment difference when that owner establishes a new homestead." Glick testified that the former wife took this form to the PAO after receiving a notice from the PAO regarding the change in ownership triggered by the dissolution of marriage. Petitioner was told by his wife that she followed all instructions given to her by the PAO staff and filed all "documents requested by the Property Appraiser." [Glick; P. Ex. 1, p. I] Ms. Ybaceta stated that the PAO never received Form DR-501 TS. The former wife reinstated the homestead exemption but did not make a new application for homestead at that time. [Ybaceta] As a result, she continues to enjoy the existing homestead exemption which carried over after reinstatement. Former Wife transferred the property into her trust at some point. However, the former wife never abandoned the property and retained the full SOH savings. Consequently, Petitioner's transfer of assessment difference was denied on grounds that the exemption is still being claimed on his previous homestead. [PAO Ex. 1, pp.10, 17] 2025-00575 Page 2 of 5 Petitioner was told by his divorce attorney that he had 3 years to transfer the assessment difference. When he was finally able to finance a new home in 2025, he made application, only to be denied. [Glick] Conclusions of Law: Petitioner appeals the denial of his request for transfer of his former homestead's assessment difference also known as the Save Our Homes savings. Section 193.155(8), governs the transfer of the assessment difference and states that "property assessed under this section shall be assessed at less than just value when the person who establishes a new homestead has received a homestead exemption as of January 1 of any of the 3 immediately preceding years. For purposes of this subsection, a husband and wife who owned and both permanently resided on a previous homestead shall each be considered to have received the homestead exemption even though only the husband or the wife applied for the homestead exemption on the previous homestead. The assessed value of the newly established homestead shall be determined as provided in this subsection." Paragraph (f) of this subsection states further that "a husband and wife abandoning jointly title property who wish to designate the ownership share to be attributed to each person for purposes of paragraph (d) must file a form provided by the department with the property appraiser in the county where such property is located." This is Form DR-50ITS which was signed by Petitioner and his former wife, and the evidence was credible and relevant to show that this was the intent of the Marital Settlement Agreement. This paragraph goes on to say that the form "must be filed prior to either person filing the form required under Paragraph (h) [the Transfer of Assessment Difference] to have a parcel of property assessed under this subsection. Such designation, once filed with the property appraiser, is irrevocable." Section 193.155(8) (h), Fla. Stat. Had the former wife asked to apply 50% of the assessment difference to the marital home, as she was required to do in accordance with the couple's settlement agreement, she would have been required to produce and file this form. Ms. Ybaceta testified that the PAO had no record of said form and Petitioner's testimony as to the wife's filing (or presentment) of this form to the PAO could not be corroborated. Although Petitioner's testimony was credible as to what he was told by his former wife, it was uncorroborated hearsay and, therefore, insufficient proof that the form was actually provided to the PAO. The PAO cites to paragraph (d) of s. 193.155(8) which prohibits any reduction from just value of a new homestead unless the prior homestead is reassessed at just value or is reassessed under this subsection as of January 1 after the abandonment occurs." Rule 12D-8.0065 provides additional guidance in this procedure and provides in subsection 2025-00575 Page 3 of 5 (6)(b) that "in the case of joint tenants with rights of survivorship, if only one owner moved and the other stayed in the original homestead, the homestead would not be abandoned. The person who moved could not transfer any assessment difference." The rule contemplates this very scenario, i.e., when one of the owners remains on the property. In this instance the Rule provides the means by which an owner may technically "abandon" the property while retaining it as that owner's primary residence by providing written notification to the PAO. "This notification must be delivered before or at the same time as the timely filing of a new application for homestead exemption." In summary, the former wife could have notified the PAO that she was abandoning the property for purposes of the allocation but retaining it as her home. This supports Ms. Ybaceta's testimony that had the PAO staff received Form DR501 TRS or been notified by the wife of the couple's intent to share the SOH Savings, the former wife would have been advised to file a new application for homestead. A new application, of course, would have resulted in a reassessment at just value. But, 50% of the assessment difference would have been applied to the property and retained by the former wife. Petitioner would then have been able to transfer his share when he acquired his new home as long as it was within the statutory period. This was not done. Rather, the former wife simply reinstated the existing homestead, leaving the assessment difference unchanged and unallocated. Because the rule places no time restriction on the technical abandonment, there remains a question as to whether former wife could still make a new application for homestead and request the allocation. This would require an adjustment to the 2025 value but would not affect prior years. Although the possibility that the former wife attempted to present the form directing the allocation and either was misinformed about the process or misunderstood what she was told is troubling, there is insufficient evidence to find that the PAO failed in this regard. Given the reassessment that would have occurred it is equally possible that the former wife simply declined to do so. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of the transfer was wrong. The denial was based on the continued homestead exemption that remained on the property due to the former wife's failure to make new application for homestead. The evidence presented by both parties was credible and relevant and was sufficient to show that former wife did not make application for homestead in 2023 once her marital status changed. Whether she was misadvised on this point is unknown and undecided. Former wife never abandoned the property and, instead, enjoyed the entire assessment difference in contravention of the settlement agreement. The entire portability process is founded on the requirement that the former homestead be abandoned. Unfortunately for Petitioner, the former wife's actions in this matter simply do not constitute an abandonment. After weighing the totality of the credible and relevant evidence provided by both parties, the Special Magistrate concludes that such evidence was insufficient to show that 2025-00575 Page 4 of 5 the PAO's denial in this instance was wrong. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and this Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2025-00575 Page 5 of 5 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00577 Parcel ID 76960002648 Petitioner name LEVY REIS, IGOR Property 13925 OLD COAST RD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,064,760.00 3,064,760.00 3,064,760.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,064,760.00 3,064,760.00 3,064,760.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 1 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,014,038.00 1 3,014,038.00 1 3,014,038.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear and did not indicate that he wanted his evidence considered in his absence. The Clerk confirmed that no good cause request was pending and Petitioner failed to 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.]. ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 10/24/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/27/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00577 Page 1 of 1 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00607 Parcel ID 16961520008 Petitioner name DELLAPINA, JEFF SHERYL Property 3760 FT CHARLESDR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34102 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 32,649,443.00 32,649,443.00 32,649,443.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,546,018.00 31,546,018.00 31,546,018.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,495,296.00 31,495,296.00 31,495,296.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00607 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00607: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Petitioner did not submitt their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020 The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Gary Price of Fifth Avenue Family Office who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $32,649,443. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 3760 Fort Charles, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a High Value IV quality two-story single-family residence with a pool area, cabana, guest house and dock. The subject was built in 2002 with an effective age of 2020 and has a base area of 7,456 square feet and 13,777 adjusted square feet on a 1.18 acre lot. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $35,944,377 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $37,126,922 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $32,649,443. The Cost Approach land value was supported via the sales approach with six land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $20,114,071 or $375.41 PSF for the subject's 53,578.80 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $15,236,333 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $558,000 and impact fees of $35,973. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $35,944,377. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on six comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $2,286 PSF to 2025-00607 Page 2 of 3 $31092 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $2,689 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $37,127,000. The Petitioner did not provide evidence. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided no market value support. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00607: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00607 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00613 Parcel ID 76715004024 Petitioner name FITZPATRICK, BRIAN M DONNA J Property 1835 TERRENO BLVD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34120 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 678,873.00 678,873.00 609,250.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 678,873.00 678,873.00 609,250.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 678,873.00 678,873.00 609,250.00 *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 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00613 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00613: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were Brian and Donna Fitzpatrick, owners of subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $678,873. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling, with pool, located in the Terreno at Valencia Golf and Country Club. The base building area is 2,139-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,574-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 13,486-sf. The property was built in 2024, with an effective age of 2024. The property sold October 2024 for $724,000. The property is located at 1835 Terreno Blvd, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, 2025-00613 Page 2 of 5 in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to October 2024. The lots range in size from 11,075-sf to 14,259-sf. The sales range in value from $9.84/sf to $23.32/sf. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and PET deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $19.53/sf x 13,486-sf = $2631332. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $37,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $476,583 the land value is estimated at $263,332 for a total cost of $776,915. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to October 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 2,139-sf to 2,975-sf and adjusted building size of 2,574- sf to 3,571-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 11,075-sf to 14,259-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 2023 to 2024. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -1 to -5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $237.00/sf to $300.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $279.00/sf and a median of $287.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $287.00/sf of building area including land on 2,574-sf or $739,000 rounded. PET's evidence consisted of a 20-page report, and included the property record card for the subject, the property record card for four similar properties, two aerial views of the subject development, PET provided 5 pages on an article dated April 2024 on "How are 2025-00613 Page 3 of 5 Property taxes assessed on a new construction home in Florida? A detailed explanation." PET provided a map with parcel ID, sale date, land size appraised value and price/sf of land, all properties are on golf course similar to the subject, PET provided the property record card for each sale. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated their land value on the property record card at $202,290 is substantially higher than adjoining properties that have recently sold. PET provided 5 recent sales that sold from November 2024 to December 2024 with land sizes in the range of 8,937-sf to 15,824-sf, these properties have a just value for the land only in the range of $48,670 to $79,120. PET compared land values only and not the sale of the entire property. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the just value is based on comparable sales of similar properties that recently sold. The subject sold in October 2024 for $724,000 and the current just value is $678,873 which is 93.8% of the sale price. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach and provided the sale of the subject at an adjusted value of $609,246 by deducting for 1% for time of sale and the cost of sales at -15% from the sale price. SM has revised the value based on the sale of the subject to $609,250 rounded. PAO is not entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00613: 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 did not arrive at the assessment by complying with the criteria of Section 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The PAO did not 2025-00613 Page 4 of 5 establish the presumption of correctness. The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $609,250. 2025-00613 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00614 Parcel ID 76960008943 Petitioner name MCCABE, NANCY Property 13945 OLD COAST RD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,678,300.00 2,678,300.00 2,678,300.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,678,300.00 2,678,300.00 2,678,300.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,627,578.00 2,627,578.00 2,627,578.00 *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 12/02/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00614 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00614: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Ms. Carla Allegro. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $2,678,300. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00614 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00615 Parcel ID 22597010358 Petitioner name WALLEN, DAVID W JUDY L Property 7143 SUGAR MAGNOLIACT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 978,167.00 978,167.00 978,167.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 892,173.00 892,173.00 892,173.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 892,173.00 892,173.00 892,173.00 *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 10/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00615 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00615: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET), David and Judy Wallen (owners of subject property) were not present at the hearing, however requested their evidence be presented in their absence. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $9781167. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story single-family dwelling, located in the Autumn Woods subdivision. The base building area is 2,311-sf with an adjusted building size of 2,814-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 12,910.27-sf. The property was built in 2001, with an effective age of 2001. The property is located at 7143 Sugar Magnolia Court, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1 % in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, 2025-00615 Page 2 of 5 in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to December 2024. The lots range in size from 9,598.88-sf to 12,109.49-sf. The sales range in value from $46.79/sf to $78.06/sf. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and PET deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $57.82/sf x 12,910.27-sf = $7461514. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $90,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $319,743 the land value is estimated at $746,514 for a total cost of $1,156,257. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to December 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,903-sf to 3,118-sf and adjusted building size of 2,307- sf to 3,598-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 9,598.88-sf to 12,109.49-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 1998 to 2015. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 0 to -5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $332.00 to $414.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $371.00/sf and a median of $372.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $372.00/sf of building area including land on 2,814-sf or $1,048,000 rounded. 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 2025-00615 Page 3 of 5 Correctness. PET's evidence consisted of a 2-page report, consisting of comparative sales, and an explanation on the estimated value of the subject. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 4 sales, close to the date of value of 1/1/25, including the sale of the subject in July 2022 for $820,000. The properties sold from October 2023 to March 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,311-sf to 2,469-sf, the land size ranges from 10,890-sf to 18,295-sf. These properties sold in the range of $820,000 to $900,000. PET made no adjustments for the difference in the properties. PET indicated these sales show a value for the subject in the range of $875,000 to $900,000. PET provided 5 sales with lot sizes from 10,018-sf to 18,295-sf, the subject lot size is 12,910-sf, these properties sold from January 2024 to March 2025, in the range of $875,000 to $975,000. PET indicated from these sales the value of the subject ranges from $875,000 to $90000. PET indicated a final value in the range of $875,000 to $9251000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's lot sizes are not accurate, PET did not provide adjustments for the difference in the properties. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. PET provided information on four sales, some of which are out of the date of value of 1/1/25; PET made no adjustments for the difference in size and features to these properties. PET's estimate of market 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 2025-00615: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00615 Page 4 of 5 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00615 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00617 Parcel ID 40751880102 Petitioner name MONICA SABLON FOR KHARITONENKOV, Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34120 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 158,568.00 158,568.00 158,568.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 158,568.00 158,568.00 158,568.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 158,568.00 158,568.00 158,568.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00617 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00617: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Manny Lee, Derek Lindberg, and Steve Csaki while the Petitioner was represented by Monica Sablon, who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $158,568. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential located on 6th Avenue NE in Golden Gate Estates. The subject lot is 4.1 acres. The property last sold on March 15, 2023 for $169,000 with an adjacent property. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property. The Cost Approach and Income Approach were not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $188,686 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $15 815 6 8. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $39,612 to $52,438 per acres with a median of $46,021 per acre. The Property Appraiser concluded to a market value of $46,021 per acre for the subject's 4.1 acres which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $188,686. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided an informal wetlands determination and information on three sales with sales dates of 2024. Both parties agreed the subject had approximately 68% wetlands. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted one of the Petitioners comps was a disqualified sale and all of the comps are located a significant distance from the subject property. The Property Appraiser also noted the comparable sales utilized in the Property 2025-00617 Page 2 of 3 Appraiser's evidence also had wetlands. Lastly, the Property Appraiser noted wetlands impact can very greatly from property to property as all wetlands are not the same. Both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00617: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00617 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00618 Parcel ID 40751880005 Petitioner name MONICA SABLON FOR KHARITONENKOV, Property 4720 6TH AVE NE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34120 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 96,688.00 96,688.00 96,688.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 96,688.00 96,688.00 96,688.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 96,688.00 96,688.00 96,688.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00618 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00618: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Manny Lee, Derek Lindberg, and Steve Csaki while the Petitioner was represented by Monica Sablon, who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $96,688. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The lst through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a vacant residential located at 4720 6th Avenue NE in Golden Gate Estates. The subject lot is 2.5 acres. The property last sold on March 15, 2023 for $169,000 with an adjacent property. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property. The Cost Approach and Income Approach were not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach of $115,052 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $96,688. The Sales Comparison Approach consisted of a sales grid containing information on four comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of land area ranged from $32,546 to $52,438 per acre with a median of $46,021 per acre. The Property Appraiser concluded to a market value of $46,021 per acre for the subject's 2.5 acres which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $115,000. The petitioner presented an evidence package which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The Petitioner provided an informal wetlands determination and information on four sales with sales dates of 2024. Both parties agreed the subject had approximately 68% wetlands. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted all of the comps are located a significant distance from the subject property. The Property Appraiser also noted the comparable sales utilized in the Property Appraiser's evidence also had wetlands. Lastly, 2025-00618 Page 2 of 3 the Property Appraiser noted wetlands impact can very greatly from property to property as all wetlands are not the same. Both the Property Appraiser and Petitioner submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach to value. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00618: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00618 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00619 Parcel ID 39384960002 Petitioner name MONICA SABLON FOR KHARITONENKOV, Property 830 18THSTSE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34117 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 483,201.00 483,201.00 483,201.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 387,928.00 387,928.00 387,928.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 387,928.00 387,928.00 387,928.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 10/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/30/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00619 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00619: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser and the petitioner both submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner, was represented by Monica Sablon who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $483,201. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 830 18th Street SE, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a average quality one-story single-family residence with a pool area. The subject was built in 2003 and has a base area of 1,812 square feet and 2,158 adjusted square feet on a 2.27-acre lot. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $553,653 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $505,765 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $483,201. The Cost Approach land value was supported with three land comparable sales. The sales indicated a land value of $110,160 or $48,528.63 per acre for the subject's 2.27 acres. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $367,431 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $52,000 and impact fees at $24,062. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $553,653. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on three comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $206 PSF to $269 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $234 per square foot which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $506,000. 2025-00619 Page 2 of 3 The Petitioner provided a packet of evidence which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. The evidence included a comparative market analysis including five comparable sales. The Petitioner withdrew Sale 1 at the hearing noting it was a 2025 sale. In cross examination, the Property Appraiser noted the sales are located in a different market area. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided some sales data. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00619: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00619 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00620 Parcel ID 57935360004 Petitioner name JDYCMY HOLDINGS LLC Property 537 TIGERTAIL CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,858,382.00 4,858,382.00 4,858,382.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,777,011.00 4,777,011.00 4,777,011.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,777,011.00 4,777,011.00 4,777,011.00 *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 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00620 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00620: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO), represented by Mr. Robert Epperson. PAO was sworn in. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.Q. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $4,858,382. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2025-00620 Page 2 of 2 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00621 Parcel ID 57808280004 Petitioner name JAMES GLENN TURNER TRUST Property 1420 QUINTARACT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,986,853.00 4,986,853.00 4,986,853.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,456,252.00 4,456,252.00 4,456,252.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,456,252.00 4,456,252.00 4,456,252.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 12/16/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/16/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00621 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00621: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Petitioner did not submit evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Robert Epperson CFE, Darin Jones CFE and Manny Lee while the Petitioner was represented by the property owner Trustee James Glenn Clark who was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $4,986,853. The Property Appraiser presented an evidence package as well as a market analysis addendum which was felt to be relevant and credible to the valuation issue and this packet was admitted as evidence to the record. Sufficient, relevant and credible testimony and evidence was submitted by the Property Appraiser to gain the presumption of correctness under 194.301 (1) F.S. The 1st through 8th criteria of F.S. 193.011 were considered by the Property Appraiser. The preceding was supported by the application of appropriate methodology and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards. The property, which is the subject of this petition, is a single-family residence located at 1420 Quintara Court, Naples, Florida. Subject site improvements include a High Value I quality two-story single-family residence with a pool area and dock. The subject was built in 2020 and has a base area of 3,125 square feet and 4,485 adjusted square feet on a 0.46 acre lot. The property is not currently listed for sale. The Property Appraiser presented a packet of information which included a summary of the parcel information, consideration of the 1 st through 8th criteria, as well as a copy of the DR-493 form which indicates the Property Appraiser's office considered the cost of sales in arriving at a value for the subject property. This was followed by a description of the subject property inclusive of improvements and site. Next, the Property included a Cost Approach with supporting detail and a Sales Comparison Approach with supporting detail. The Income Approach was not included which is typical for this property type. The packet of information provided by the Property Appraiser provided a value indication by the Cost Approach of $5,358,942 and the Sales Comparison Approach of $5,066,312 inclusive of a 15% cost of sale. The Property Appraiser testified to a reconciled fair market value of $4,986,853. The Cost Approach land value was supported with one land sale and two extracted land sales. The sales indicated a land value of $2,346,198 or $115.47 PSF for the subject's 20,318.76 square feet. The estimated depreciated replacement cost of the improvements was provided at $2,751,789 with the contributory value of the site improvements estimated at $224,983 and impact fees at $35,972. A summary of the Cost Approach concluded for the total property of $5,358,942. This was followed by a Sales Comparison Approach which consisted of a sales grid containing information on three comparable properties. A 15% cost of sale adjustment was applied and the sales prices per square foot of building area ranged from $831 PSF to $901 PSF. The Property Appraiser correlated to a market value of $862 per square foot 2025-00621 Page 2 of 3 which provided a value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach of $5,066,000. The Petitioner did not provide evidence. The Property Appraiser submitted an analysis of the subject property utilizing the Cost and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. The Petitioner provided no market value support. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00621: Florida law allows 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. In this 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00621 Page 3 of 3 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00622 Parcel ID 66760011221 Petitioner name RANDIE YORK OCONNOR AND ASSOCIAI Property 6435 NAPLESBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34109 representative other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,907,909.00 4,907,909.00 4,907,909.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,907,909.00 4,907,909.00 4,907,909.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,907,909.00 4,907,909.00 4,907,909.00 *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. Michael P. Jonas Michael P. Jonas 02/18/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00622 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00622: All parties were properly sworn in. In addition, they were provided with an opening statement explaining the independent, impartial and unbiased nature of the Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's representative indicated that the Property Appraiser submitted their evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Petitioner did not submit evidence in accordance with F.A.C. 12D-9.020. The Property Appraiser was represented by Chris Delpo, MAI, CFE while the Petitioner indicated a desire to have their petition heard without their attendance however no evidence was submitted. The Property Appraiser noted the Trim Notice has not been revised prior to the hearing at $4,907,909. Based on the quality and quantity of information presented by the Petitioner, it is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the quantity and quality of information presented by the Petitioner does not rise to the level of overturning the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00622: Florida law allows 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. 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 providing 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 arbitrary based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same country. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the value should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00622 Page 2 of 2 F10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00629 Parcel ID 38451120006 Petitioner name KUHL, DAVID D Property 6953 LIVINGSTON WOODS LN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address representative NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 4,177,001.00 4,177,001.00 4,177,001.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,177,001.00 4,177,001.00 4,177,001.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,177,001.00 4,177,001.00 4,177,001.00 *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 02/18/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/18/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00629 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00629: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Steve Csaki. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. David Kuhl, owner of the subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $4,177,001. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a high value, one-story single-family dwelling, with pool area and cabana. The base building area is 4,169-sf with an adjusted building size of 6,425-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs (if available), and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 2.27 acres. The property was built in 2024, with an effective age of 2024. The property is located at 6953 Livingston Woods Lane, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 2025-00629 Page 2 of 5 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 37 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing for the history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, neighborhood performance charts, vacant land sales by neighborhood chart and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 vacant land sales in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2023 to March 2025. The lots range in size from 1.14 acres to 2.73 acres. The sales range in value from $5 1 0,000/acre to $599,585/ acre. PAO adjusted land sales for cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $561,000/acre x 2.27 acres = $11273,470. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements are estimated at $280,000, impact fees are estimated at $30,881; depreciated building cost is estimated at $3,212,251; the land value is estimated at $1,273,470 for a total cost of $4,796,602. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2024 to March 2025. The sales range in building size (under air) from 2,967-sf to 5,565-sf and adjusted building size of 3,698-sf to 71151-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 2.5 to 4.27 acres. The buildings have an effective age from 2006 to 2024. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of 0-0% to -2% and; for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $665.00 to $838.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $748.00/sf and a median of $760.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $760.00/sf of building area including land on 6,425-sf or $4,885,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 4-page report, that included a comparative sales chart and 2025-00629 Page 3 of 5 explanation of the subject property and it's assessment. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 7 pages of evidence that was submitted after the evidence exchange deadline. PAO objected to this evidence, since it was admitted after the deadline date. SM did not consider this evidence. PET provided 4 sales in subject neighborhood that sold from October 2024 to March 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,820-sf to 4,927-sf and were built from 2006 to 2022; the land size ranges from 2.50 acres to 4.27 acres. The sales sold in the range of $684.00 to $869.00/sf. Three of PET's sales are shared with PAO. PET made no adjustments to the sales. PET is requesting a value of $3,500,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET originally owned the land for Sale # 1 and sold the land, a house was built and the improved property sold in January 2025 for $6,430,000. PAO indicated the subject property has more extra features than sale # 1, the subject has a cabana and tennis/pickleball court. As rebuttal, PET indicated the subject is smaller in size than PAO sale # 1 and shouldn't be priced at the same amount. The subject is located near a commercial zone and Sale # 1 is an interior lot in a better area. PAO's sale # 1 is superior to the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on Sale # 1(sold for $6,430,000) is located in the same neighborhood as the subject, is similar in quality and age to the subject, this sale was adjusted to $838.00/sf. PAO's sale # 3 is a recent sale that sold for $4,100,000, it has a larger land size, is similar in building size and age as the subject, this sale was adjusted to $665.00/sf. These two sales are the most comparable to the subject; the average price/ sf for these two sales is $751.00/sf and the subject just value is $650.12, which is lower than the adjusted price from the sales. 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 2025-00629: Florida Law allows 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 2025-00629 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00629 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00631 Parcel ID 70035507207 Petitioner name DAVID AND LAURA HANSMANN Property 250 RIVERWOOD RD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34114 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 353,921.00 306,876.00 306,876.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 262,933.00 262,933.00 262,933.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 262,933.00 262,933.00 262,933.00 *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 10/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/04/2025 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00631 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00631: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraisers (PAO) represented by Mr. Robert Epperson, Mr. Darin Jones and Mr. Manny Lee. The Petitioners (PET) were David and Laura Hansmann, owners of subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $306,876. The TRIM value has changed from $353,921. PAO described the property as a one-story mobile home with a carport, patio area and dock, located in the Riverwood mobile home subdivision. The base building area is 1,078-sf. The land size is 13,068-sf. The property was built in 1991, with an effective age of 1991. The property is located at 250 Riverwood Road, Naples Florida. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. Collier County Market Analysis for 2024. PAO provided a Collier County residential Market Analysis for 2024 for the 2025 tax year, with supporting data. PAO indicated the residential market in 2024 showed signs of cooling yet maintained overall stability. PAO indicated that single family residential in Naples and Marco Island has decreased about 5% in 2025, residential condominiums decreased 7% and vacant land increased 1% in 2025. PAO indicated sales used in the analysis of the current value are sales that occurred in 2024 and not 2025, when values, in 2024, were slightly higher. Sales from 2024 were used for the valuation date of sale of 1/l/2025. PAO presented a report containing 32 pages. The report included the evidence and 2025-00631 Page 2 of 5 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, purpose and function of the appraisal, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior and interior photographs of the subject, and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and provided land sales in chart form and a summary of the cost of the building. PAO provided the Sales Comparison Approach and provided sales, in chart form, with photographs and building sketch of each sale. PAO included the Multiple Listing history of sales for the subject, impact fee calculator, and subject property record card. PAO did not include the Income Approach to value. 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 residual land sales, in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to July 2024. The lots range in size from 7,405.2-sf to 11,157.6-sf. The sales range in value from $21.00/sf to $29.61/sf. PAO adjusted the residual land sales by deducting the depreciated building value; and PET deducted the cost of sales at -15%. PAO reconciled the land value at $27.67/sf x 13,068-sf = $3071305. PAO developed the building cost, using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The site improvements and impact fees are estimated at $23,000; depreciated building cost is estimated at $40,289 the land value is estimated at $307,305 for a total cost of $370,594. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2024 to July 2024. The sales range in building size (under air) from 1,340-sf to 1,566-sf and adjusted building size of 1,340-sf to 1,566-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 6,534-sf to 8,415-sf. The buildings have an effective age from 1985 to 2015. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for time of sale, with a downward adjustment of -2% to -5%, for cost of sales at -15%. PAO adjusted for the difference in, lot size, building size, age and quality, and extra features. The adjusted sales range from $301.00 to $319.00/sf of adjusted square footage with a mean of $313.00/sf and a median of $316.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $316.00/sf of building area including land on 1,078-sf or $341,000 rounded. 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 consisted of a 7-page report, consisting of a cover e-mail letter and the property record card of the subject and 4 other neighboring properties. 2025-00631 Page 3 of 5 PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated their property has 25 ft of frontage along the river and the just value for subject land is at $266,587; most adjoining properties have 60 ft of frontage on the river. The subject has a land size of .22 acres and the properties presented by PET range in size from .17 to .24 acres and the land value on the property record card for these properties ranges from $140,699 to $240,451. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's comparables are not recent sales, and PET's land size is larger than most of the sales. PAO indicated the parcels on the water are in the $24.00/ sf range and dry lots are at $17.00/sf, the subject has been valued at $20.47/sf. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a Cost Approach and a Sales Comparison approach using current costs and recent 2024 sales in subject neighborhood. PAO placed emphasis on the Sales Approach. PET provided information on four properties and compared the current land just values for these properties and not a current sale price of the entire property. PET compared the land values only and not the value of the total property, the purpose of arriving at a market value is to determine the value of the total property and not one component. 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 2025-00631: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. 2025-00631 Page 4 of 5 Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00631 Page 5 of 5 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00636 Parcel ID 21785000058 Petitioner name FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX SERVICE Property 8875 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34104 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,289,913.00 2,289,913.00 2,289,913.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,567,833.00 1,567,833.00 1,567,833.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,567,833.00 1,567,833.00 1,567,833.00 *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 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00636 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00636: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Ronald Rodriguez, from Florida Property Tax Service, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,289,913. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-average fast food restaurant, occupied by McDonald's. The building area is 4,310-sf. the land size is 45,754-sf or 1.05 acres. The building was built in 1990. The property is located off Collier Boulevard, neat the Interstate 75 exit. The property is located at 8875 Davis Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 109 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed 2025-00636 Page 2 of 6 description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicate Sales # 2 and 5 are rear parcels with no frontage, which accounts for the low price/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $36.00/sf x 45,754-sf or $1,647,144. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $204,094, impact fees at $497,000, the land value is estimated at $1,647,144, entrepreneurial profit at $185,124 indicates a total cost of $2,533,362. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $2,153,357. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of restaurant properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from December 2020 to May 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,940-sf to 8,986-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 13,358-sf to 85,813-sf, with a Floor area ratio ranging from .08 to .15, the subject has a floor area ratio of .09. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2022. The unadjusted sales range from $474.00 to $1,055.00/sf, with a mean of $658.00/sf and a median of $617.00/sf of building area including land. Sale # 6, a former Burger King, located at 9271 Tamiami Trail N, Naples, is a shared sale with PET; the building size is 2,628-sf, lands size is 35,500-sf. The property sold 1/23 for $571.00/sf and was vacant at time of sale. PAO reconciled a value at $625.00/sf of building area including land on 4,310-sf or $21693,750. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $2,289,687. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from Costar, a national real estate market data survey company. The single tenant restaurant user rents range from $22.00/sf to $163.15/sf , triple net, with a mean of $56.58/sf and a median of $48.00/sf. PAO provided net rents from the net operating income (NOI) from sales that range from 2025-00636 Page 3 of 6 $16.19/sf to $78.00/sf with a mean of $44.12/sf and a mean of $40.22/sf. PAO estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf on 4,304-sf at $193,950.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.1 % to 10.8%, with an average of 3.9%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject or $7,758 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $186,192. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income or $14,895. The net operating income is estimated at $171,297. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from restaurant sales in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from January 2024 to May 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.11% to 7.83% with a mean of 6.12% and a median of 5.83%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. %. The Boulder Group indicates cap rates for McDonald's on long term leases in the range of 4.10% to 4.40% for 20 year leases and 5% to 5.3% for 5 year leases. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.25% for the subject. The NOI of $171,297 capitalized at 6.25% indicates a value of $2,740,746. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $2,329,625. PAO's just value is $2,289,913 or $531.00/sf. 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 24-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, property record card, Costar property information on subject with photographs. PET developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from CoStar, with details for each rent comparable. PET provided a chart on capitalization rates. PET provided the Sales Comparable approach and provided comparable improved sales in chart form. PET included portions of 193.011 FS, as well as bulletin PTO 11-01, and form DR-493. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2025-00636 Page 4 of 6 PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 5 restaurant rents that range from $19.00/sf to $70.00/sf triple net, with an average asking rent of $45.24/sf and a median of $44.50/sf. PET estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf on 4,310- sf for a gross income of $193,950. PET's rent comparables indicate a vacancy from 3% to 4%. PET estimated a vacancy of 10% for subject or $19,395. The effective gross income (EGI) is $174,555. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI or $17,456 and reserves at 3% of EGI or $5,237. Net operating income is $151,863. PET provided cap rates from CoStar, a national survey, in the range of 5.8% to 6%. PET estimated a cap rate of 6.00% PET capitalized the NOI of $151,863 at 6.00% for an estimated value of $2,531,042, less 15% COS indicates a value of $2,151,385 or $499.16/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and provided 3 sales, an Arby's in Fort Myers that sold for $192.99/sf after cost of sale (COS) in January 2024; and the shared sales with PAO of a Burger King in Naples that sold for $485.16/sf after COS. PET provided the sale of a Burger king located in Sarasota that sold 1/25 for $390.15 after COS. PET requested a value of $2,151,385. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's vacancy rate at 10% is high, PET indicated a specialized fast food restaurant typically stays vacant for a longer time than regular restaurants and increased the vacancy to 10%; PAO indicated the subject has been operating since 1990 at this location and a lower vacancy is warranted. PAO indicated PET's operating expenses at 13% including reserves is high for a triple net lease where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. PET indicated the Burger King sale was vacant at time of sale; PAO indicated the location, of the Burger King, is excellent along Tamiami Trail N. and that particular location may not be a good location for a fast food restaurant. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's vacancy rate is high at 10% and PET's operating expenses on a triple net basis at 13% are high. SM reconstructed the Income Approach using a rent of $45.00/sf, 5% vacancy, 8% operating expenses and a cap rate of 6.25%, the indicated value is $2,305,367 after COS, which is higher than the just value of $2,289,913. PET's value is understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET's evidence was more credible, more relevant and or 2025-00636 Page 5 of 6 more sufficient than PAO's evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00636: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00636 Page 6 of 6 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00639 Parcel ID 59940902523 Petitioner name FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX SERVICE Property 2886 TAM IAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34112 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,168,368.00 2,168,368.00 1,997,270.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,447,502.00 1,447,502.00 1,447,502.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,447,502.00 1,447,502.00 1,447,502.00 *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 01/08/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/09/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00639 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00639: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Ronald Rodriguez, from Florida Property Tax Service, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,168,368. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-average fast food restaurant, occupied by McDonald's. The building area is 3,734-sf. the land size is 36,860-sf or .85 acres. The building was built in 2009. The property is an outparcel is a shopping center. The property is located at 2886 Tamiami Trail E, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 118 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided 2025-00639 Page 2 of 7 rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicate Sales # 2 and 5 are rear parcels with no frontage, which accounts for the low price/s£ PAO reconciled a value at $50.00/sf x 36,860-sf or $1,843,000. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $529,910, impact fees at $430,000, the land value is estimated at $1,843,000, entrepreneurial profit at $237,291 indicates a total cost of $3,040,201. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $2,584,181. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 sales of restaurant properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from December 2020 to May 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,940-sf to 8,986-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from 13,358-sf to 85,813-sf, with a Floor area ratio ranging from .08 to .15, the subject has a floor area ratio of .09. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2022. The unadjusted sales range from $474.00 to $1,055.00/sf, with a mean of $658.00/sf and a median of $617.00/sf of building area including land. Sale # 6, a former Burger King, located at 9271 Tamiami Trail N, Naples, is a shared sale with PET; the building size is 2,628-sf, lands size is 35,500-sf. The property sold 1/23 for $571.00/sf and was vacant at time of sale. PAO reconciled a value at $650.00/sf of building area including land on 3,734-sf or $21427,100. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $2,063,035. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents, in Collier County, from Costar, a national real estate market data survey company. The single tenant restaurant user rents range from $22.00/sf to $163.15/sf , triple net, with a mean of $56.58/sf and a median of $48.00/sf. PAO provided net rents from the net operating income (NOI) from sales that range from $16.19/sf to $78.00/sf with a mean of $44.12/sf and a mean of $40.22/sf. PAO estimated 2025-00639 Page 3 of 7 a market rent of $45.00/sf on 3,734-sf at $168,030.00. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.1 % to 10.8%, with an average of 3.9%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject or $6,721 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $161,309. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 3.2% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income or $12,905. The net operating income is estimated at $148,404. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from restaurant sales in Collier and Lee Counties. The sales occurred from January 2024 to May 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 5.11% to 7.83% with a mean of 6.12% and a median of 5.83%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. %. The Boulder Group indicates cap rates for McDonald's on long term leases in the range of 4.10% to 4.40% for 20 year leases and 5% to 5.3% for 5 year leases. PAO estimated a cap rate of 6.25% for the subject. The NOI of $148,404 capitalized at 6.25% indicates a value of $2,374,466. SM deducted cost of sales at -15% for an indicated value of $2,018,296. PAO's just value is $2,168,368 or $581.00/sf. PET presented a report containing 24-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, property record card, Costar property information on subject with photographs. PET developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from CoStar, with details for each rent comparable. PET provided a chart on capitalization rates. PET provided the Sales Comparable approach and provided comparable improved sales in chart form. PET included portions of 193.011 FS, as well as bulletin PTO 11-01, and form DR-493. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 5 restaurant rents that range from $19.00/sf to $70.00/sf triple net, with an average asking rent of $45.24/sf and a median of $44.50/sf. PET estimated a market rent of $46.00/sf on 3,734- sf for a gross income of $171,764. PET's rent comparables indicate a vacancy from 3% to 4%. PET estimated a vacancy of 2025-00639 Page 4 of 7 9.9% for subject or $17,176. The effective gross income (EGI) is $154,588. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI or $15,459 and reserves at 3% of EGI or $4,638. Net operating income is $134,491. PET provided cap rates from CoStar, a national survey, in the range of 5.8% to 6%. PET estimated a cap rate of 6.00% PET capitalized the NOI of $134,491 at 6.00% for an estimated value of $2,241,514, less 15% COS indicates a value of $1,905,287 or $499.16/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and provided 3 sales, an Arby's in Fort Myers that sold for $192.99/sf after cost of sale (COS) in January 2024; and the shared sales with PAO of a Burger King in Naples that sold for $485.16/sf after COS. PET provided the sale of a Burger king located in Sarasota that sold 1/25 for $390.15 after COS. PET requested a value of $1,905,287 or $510.25/sf As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's vacancy rate at 10% is high, PET indicated a specialized fast food restaurant typically stays vacant for a longer time than regular restaurants and PET increased the vacancy to 10%; PAO indicated the subject has been operating since 2009 at this location and a lower vacancy is warranted. PAO indicated PET's operating expenses at 13% including reserves is high for a triple net lease where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. PET indicated the Burger King sale was vacant at time of sale; PAO indicated the location, of the Burger King, is excellent along Tamiami Trail N. and that particular location may not be a good location for a fast food restaurant. PET indicated PAO's values after deduction for COS in the Income Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are lower than the just value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PET's vacancy rate is high at 10% and PET's operating expenses on a triple net basis at 13% are high. SM reconstructed the Income Approach using a rent of $45.00/sf, 5% vacancy, 8% operating expenses and a cap rate of 6.25%, the indicated value is $2,349,732 and after COS is $1,997,272 which is lower than the just value of $2,168,368. PAO did not establish the presumption of correctness. SM Revised Estimate 3,734-sf @ $45.00 $168,030 Less Vacancy 5%-$8,402 Effective Gross Income $159,629 Less Expenses @ 8% of EGI-$12,770 2025-00639 Page 5 of 7 NOI $1461858 Base Cap Rate 6.25% Eff. Tax Rate 0.000% Total Cap Rate 6.250% Indicated Value $2,3491732 Less Cost of Sales -15%-$3521460 Indicated Just Value $1,997,272 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. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00639: 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 did not arrive at the assessment by complying with these standards, PAO's value is overstated. PAO did not establish 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). Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. 2025-00639 Page 6 of 7 SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $1,997,270 rounded. 2025-00639 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00642 Parcel ID 29520002909 Petitioner name DELTA PROPERTY TAX ADVISORS Property 6065 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34119 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,182,529.00 2,182,529.00 2,182,529.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,622,427.00 1,622,427.00 1,622,427.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,622,427.00 1,622,427.00 1,622,427.00 *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 01/17/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00642 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00642: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Jaden Randall, from Delta Property Tax Advisors, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,182,529. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-avrage retail store and gas station, with a 4,320-sf canopy, occupied by Circle K. The property is an outparcel in a shopping center with Publix as the anchor tenant. The subject has a McDonald's in the building with a drive-thru. The building area is 2,400-sf. the land size is 36,123-sf or .83 acres. The building was built in 1995. The property is located just east of Interstate 75 (I-75), with an exit off I-75 at 6065 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 108 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison 2025-00642 Page 2 of 7 Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicated Sales # 2 and # 5 are inferior parcels having no frontage on a main artery. PAO reconciled a value at $55.00/sf x 36,123-sf or $1,986,765. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $318,458, impact fees at $194,000, the land value is estimated at $1,986,765, entrepreneurial profit at $230,522 indicates a total cost of $2,729,745. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,320,283. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 15 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from January 2023 to August 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,200-sf to 5,198-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .39 acres to 2.99 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .04 to .11, the subject has a floor area ratio of .07. The buildings were built from 1979 to 2023. The unadjusted sales range from $500.00 to $2,290/sf, with a mean of $1,438/sf and a median of $1,643.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $1,100.00/sf of building area including land on 2,400-sf or $2,640,000. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,244,000. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of Circle K and retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents (NOI $/SF building) and (NOI $/sf land) of convenience stores with gas station, and ground lease sales in various cities in Florida. PAO indicated the ground lease sales were used to take into consideration the larger land size for convenience stores to accommodate the gas tanks and parking. The building sales sold from January 2023 to February 2025, the buildings range from 1,031-sf to 2025-00642 Page 3 of 7 8,752-sf with an FAR of .03 to .22; the rents range from $33.98/sf to $198.06/sf with a mean of $74.85/sf and a median of $74.74/sf. PAO estimated a market rent at $70.00/sf on a building size of 2,400-sf for an gross income of $168,000. PAO ground lease sales sold from April 2017 to December 2024 and 4 listings. The land size ranges from .32 acres to 15.47 acres with an FAR range of .02 to .26; the rents range from $2.30/sf to $12.98/sf with a mean of $5.36/sf and a median of $4.97/sf. PAO estimated a market rent at $4.75/sf on a land size of 36,123-sf for an gross income of $171,584. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 4.1%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject. The effective gross income (EGI) is $161,280 for the building area and $164,721 for the land area. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2.0% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income. The net operating income (NOI) based on the building area is $148,378 and the NOI based on the land area is $151,543. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from gas stations with convenience stores in Collier County and south west Florida. The sales occurred from January 2023 to February 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.30% to 8.00% with a mean of 5.30% and a median of 5.09%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. The Boulder Group cap rate on a 15-year lease, for a Circle K ranges from 5.5% to 5.8%; 7-Eleven stores range from 5.1 % to 5.4% on a 15 year lease; Wawa ranges from 4.85 to 5.1 % on a 15 year lease; Murphy USA ranges from 5.7% to 6% on a 15 year lease. PAO estimated a cap rate of 5.5% for the subject. The NOI (on the building area) of $148,378 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $2,697,775 less $10.00 tangible property indicates a value of $2,697,765. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,293,100. The NOI (on the land area) of $151,543 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $217551331. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,342,031. 2025-00642 Page 4 of 7 PAO reconciled a value by the Income Approach at $2,755,331. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,342,031. PAO's just value is $2,182,529 or $909.00/sf. 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 total of 36-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, photograph of the subject. PET presented the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach in summary form and a reconciliation of values. Under separate package, PET provided comparable land sales with details and photographs, comparable rental data with details and photographs, Improved sales with details and photographs and pages from Marshall Valuation pertaining to the cost of the cost estimate for the subject. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Cost Approach and provided 4 land sales located in Collier and Lee County. The land sales sold from March 2022 to November 2025. The sales range in land size from 1.07 acres to 9.93 acres and sold from $1.07/sf to $15.25/sf. PET estimated a land value at $1,171,812 or $32.44/sf. PET developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated cost of the building and site improvements is $225,060 plus land value of $1,171,812 for a total value of $1,386,872. At the hearing PET added impact fees and entrepreneurial profit of 10% similar to PAO and verbally changed the value by the Cost Approach to $1,700,000 PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales. The sales occurred from March 2024 to November 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,936-sf to 3,147-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .37 acres to .92 acres. The buildings were built from 1969 to 1985. The unadjusted sales range from $389.58 to $774.79/sf of building area. In the evidence package, PET provided 4 improved sales and include only 3 sales on the sale chart and analysis, however, at the hearing PET included all 4 sale and verbally changed the value from $486.08/sf to $558.00/sf or $1,512,180. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 3 rents of small buildings, located in Naples. The rents range from $26.00 to $33.81/sf triple net, the space ranges in size from 1,000-sf to 2,460-sf and are free standing buildings. PET provided 4 rents of Circle K convenience stores with gas stations in Collier County. The buildings were built from 1978 to 1995 and range in size from 2,400-sf to 3,840-s£ The 2025-00642 Page 5 of 7 rents range from $27.00/sf ( in Everglades City) to $85.88/sf (in Naples). PET estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf on 2,710-sf for a gross income of $121,950. (The actual building size is 2,400-sf.) PET did not provide for vacancy. The effective gross income (EGI) is $121,950. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI. Net operating income is $109,755. At the hearing, PET changed their cap rate from 7% to PAO's cap rate of 5.5%. PET capitalized the NOI of $109,755 at 5.50% for an estimated value of $1,995,545. PET requested a reconciled value of $1,735,900. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's cost did not include impact fees or entrepreneurial profit. PET's canopy cost in the Cost Approach is low at $39.50/sf, and PET depreciated the canopy 80%; PAO indicated this canopy is steel structure with a barrel roof, not the typical canopy for a circle K, PAO used $100/sf and depreciated the canopy 63%. PET's land sales are inferior to the subject, being located in Lee County, a different market than Naples and the sales are located in less desirable areas not conducive to development of a gas station/convenience store. All of PET's improved sales are in secondary locations. One sale was purchased by a government entity in an inferior location to the subject. One sale used to be a 7-Eleven that closed, indication the location was not ideal for a gas/ convenience store. The sale in Lely is not as good a location as the subject. PAO indicated PET's Circle K rents do not indicate when the lease was negotiated. PET's comparable market rents are inferior in location to the subject; one comparable has been converted to an auto service store, none of the comparable rents are convenience store/ gas stations and indicate lower rents. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's land sales are not for gas station development. PAO's mean and median land values range from $44.53/sf to $47.15/sf, PAO used $55.00/sf, much higher than the mean or median. PAO responded and indicated two of the sales used in their analysis are rear parcels and sold for much less; also, the subject is an outparcel in a shopping center anchored by Publix grocery store and the subject is located off an exit at Interstate 75, making this a prime location. PAO's canopy cost is high at $100/sf, PET used $39.50/sf. PET indicated PAO's improved sales are newer than the subject, PET used sales closer in size and age to the subject. PET indicated PAO's pages 98-100 provided information on national convenience stores from the Boulder Group that indicate rents in the range of $51.67/sf to $80.00/sf and PAO's Collier County Retail Analysis -page 20, indicates rents from $24.00 to $31.00/sf. PAO responded and indicated the rents in the Collier County Retail Analysis are for all retail rents in the county and not specific to convenience store/gas stations, which are typically higher. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO and PET provided support for 2025-00642 Page 6 of 7 the value using the three approaches to value. PET's land value is understated, PET's land sales are located at a distance from the subject in a different market and are inferior to the subject; the canopy is superior than the typical canopy for Circle K, SM has accepted PAO's cost for the canopy. PET's improved sales are not comparable to the subject in location and use. PET's income at $45.00/sf is low for a gas station/ convenience store in this location, PET provided leases for properties similar to the subject in the $62.00 to $86.00/sf, but did not use these rents. 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 2025-00642: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00642 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00644 Parcel ID 37930500009 Petitioner name DELTA PROPERTY TAX ADVISORS Property 4025 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34119 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,134,111.00 3,134,111.00 3,134,111.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,860,088.00 1,860,088.00 1,860,088.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,860,088.00 1,860,088.00 1,860,088.00 *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 01/17/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00644 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00644: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Jaden Randall, from Delta Property Tax Advisors, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $311341111. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-average retail store and gas station with car was, occupied by Circle K. The canopy is 4,484-sf, the building area is 3,620-sf and car wash is attached to the building and contains 796-sf. The land size is 53,610-sf or 1.23 acres. The building was built in 2001. The property is located at the northwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road, both major routes. The subject is located at 4025 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 111 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison 2025-00644 Page 2 of 7 Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicated Sales # 2 and # 5 are inferior parcels having no frontage on a main artery. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf x 53,610-sf or $2,412,450. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $553,723, impact fees at $152,000, the land value is estimated at $2,412,450, entrepreneurial profit at $296,617 indicates a total cost of $3,414,790. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,902,572. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 15 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from January 2023 to August 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,200-sf to 5,198-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .39 acres to 2.99 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .04 to .11, the subject has a floor area ratio of .07. The buildings were built from 1979 to 2023. The unadjusted sales range from $500.00 to $2,290/sf, with a mean of $1,438/sf and a median of $1,643.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value based on the age, size and location at $1,050.00/sf of building area including land on 3,620-sf or $318011000. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,230,850. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of Circle K and retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents (NOI $/SF building) and (NOI $/sf land) of convenience stores with gas station, and ground lease sales in various cities in Florida. PAO indicated the ground lease sales were used to take into consideration the larger land size for convenience stores to accommodate the gas tanks and parking. The building sales sold from January 2023 to February 2025, the buildings range from 1,031-sf to 2025-00644 Page 3 of 7 8,752-sf with an FAR of .03 to .22; the rents range from $33.98/sf to $198.06/sf with a mean of $74.85/sf and a median of $74.74/sf. PAO estimated a market rent based on the location, size and age of the subject at $65.00/sf on a building size of 3,620-sf for an gross income of $235,300. PAO ground lease sales sold from April 2017 to December 2024 and 4 listings. The land size ranges from .32 acres to 15.47 acres with an FAR range of .02 to .26; the rents range from $2.30/sf to $12.98/sf with a mean of $5.36/sf and a median of $4.97/sf. PAO estimated a market rent at $4.50/sf on a land size of 53,610-sf for an gross income of $2411245. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 4.1%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject. The effective gross income (EGI) is $225,888 for the building area and $231,595 for the land area. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2.0% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income. The net operating income (NOI) based on the building area is $207,817 and the NOI based on the land area is $213,068. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from gas stations with convenience stores in Collier County and south west Florida. The sales occurred from January 2023 to February 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.30% to 8.00% with a mean of 5.30% and a median of 5.09%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. The Boulder Group cap rate on a 15-year lease, for a Circle K ranges from 5.5% to 5.8%; 7-Eleven stores range from 5.1 % to 5.4% on a 15 year lease; Wawa ranges from 4.85 to 5.1 % on a 15 year lease; Murphy USA ranges from 5.7% to 6% on a 15 year lease. PAO estimated a cap rate of 5.5% for the subject. The NOI (on the building area) of $207,817 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $3,778,490 less $11.00 tangible property indicates a value of $3,778,479. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,2111707. The NOI (on the land area) of $213,068 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $31873,956. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,292,862. PAO reconciled a value by the Income Approach at $3,873,956. SM deducted for cost of 2025-00644 Page 4 of 7 sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,292,862. PAO's just value is $3,134,111 or $866.00/sf. 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 total of 36-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, photograph of the subject. PET presented the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach in summary form and a reconciliation of values. Under separate package, PET provided comparable land sales with details and photographs, comparable rental data with details and photographs, Improved sales with details and photographs and pages from Marshall Valuation pertaining to the cost of the cost estimate for the subject. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Cost Approach and provided 4 land sales located in Collier and Lee County. The land sales sold from March 2022 to November 2025. The sales range in land size from 1.07 acres to 9.93 acres and sold from $1.07/sf to $15.25/sf. PET estimated a land value at $1,6811210 or $31.36/sf. PET developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated cost of the building and site improvements is $3671556 plus land value of $1,681,210 for a total value of $2,048,766. At the hearing PET added impact fees and entrepreneurial profit of 10% similar to PAO and verbally changed the value by the Cost Approach to $2,100,000. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales. The sales occurred from March 2024 to November 2025. The sales range in building size from 11936-sf to 3,147-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .37 acres to .92 acres. The buildings were built from 1969 to 1985. The unadjusted sales range from $389.58 to $774.79/sf of building area. In the evidence package, PET provided 4 improved sales and include only 3 sales on the sale chart and analysis, however, at the hearing PET included all 4 sale and verbally changed the value from $486.08/sf to $580.11/sf or $2,100,000. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 3 rents of small buildings, located in Naples. The rents range from $26.00 to $33.81/sf triple net, the space ranges in size from 1,000-sf to 2,460-sf and are free standing buildings. PET provided 4 rents of Circle K convenience stores with gas stations in Collier County. The buildings were built from 1978 to 1995 and range in size from 2,400-sf to 3,840-sf. The rents range from $27.00/sf ( in Everglades City) to $85.88/sf (in Naples). PET estimated 2025-00644 Page 5 of 7 a market rent of $45.00/sf on 3,620-sf for a gross income of $162,900. PET did not provide for vacancy. The effective gross income (EGI) is $162,900. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI. Net operating income is $1461610. At the hearing, PET changed their cap rate from 7% to PAO's cap rate of 5.5%. PET capitalized the NOI of $146,610 at 5.50% for an estimated value of $2,665,636. PET requested a reconciled value of $2,372,503. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's cost did not include impact fees or entrepreneurial profit. PET's canopy cost in the Cost Approach is low at $39.50/sf, and PET depreciated the canopy 80%; PAO indicated this canopy is a steel structure with a barrel roof, not the typical canopy for a circle K, PAO used $100/sf and depreciated the canopy 63%. PET's land sales are inferior to the subject, being located in Lee County, a different market than Naples and the sales are located in less desirable areas not conducive to development of a gas station/convenience store. All of PET's improved sales are in secondary locations; one sale was purchased by a government entity in an inferior location to the subject; one sale used to be a 7-Eleven that closed, indication the location was not ideal for a gas/ convenience store; the sale in Lely is not as good a location as the subject. PAO indicated PET's Circle K rents do not indicate when the lease was negotiated. PET's comparable market rents are inferior in location to the subject; one comparable has been converted to an auto service store, none of the comparable rents are convenience store/gas stations and indicate lower rents. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's land sales are not for gas station development. PAO's mean and median land values range from $44.53/sf to $47.15/sf, PAO used $55.00/sf, much higher than the mean or median. PAO responded and indicated two of the sales used in their analysis are rear parcels and sold for much less. PET indicated PAO's canopy cost is high at $100/sf, PET used $39.50/sf. PET indicated PAO's improved sales are newer than the subject, PET used sales closer in size and age to the subject. PET indicated PAO's pages 98-100 provided information on national convenience stores from the Boulder Group that indicate rents in the range of $51.67/sf to $80.00/sf and PAO's Collier County Retail Analysis -page 20, indicates rents from $24.00 to $31.00/sf. PAO responded and indicated the rents in the Collier County Retail Analysis are for all retail rents in the county and not specific to convenience store/gas stations, which are typically higher. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO and PET provided support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET's land value is understated, PET's land sales are located at a distance from the subject in a different market and are inferior to the subject; the canopy is superior than the typical canopy for Circle K, SM has 2025-00644 Page 6 of 7 accepted PAO's cost for the canopy; PET did not include the cost of the car wash in the Cost Approach. PET's improved sales are not comparable to the subject in location and use. PET's income at $45.00/sf is low for a gas station/convenience store in this location, PET provided leases for properties similar to the subject in the $62.00 to $86.00/sf, but did not use these rents. 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 2025-00644: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00644 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00646 Parcel ID 63000240001 Petitioner name DELTA PROPERTY TAX ADVISORS Property 1000 WHIPPOORWILLLN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34105 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,832,944.00 2,832,944.00 2,781,350.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,039,573.00 2,039,573.00 2,039,573.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,039,573.00 2,039,573.00 2,039,573.00 *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 01/17/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00646 Page 1 of 8 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00646: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Jaden Randall, from Delta Property Tax Advisors, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,832,944. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-average retail store and gas station, with a 4,484-sf canopy, occupied by Circle K. The building area is 2,911-sf, the land size is 45,000-sf or 1.03 acres. The building was built in 1995. The property is located just west of Interstate 75 (I-75), with an exit off I-75 at Pine Ridge Road, the subject has frontage along Pine Ridge, Road with access off Whippoorwill Lane. The subject is located at 1000 Whippoorwill Lane, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 110 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison 2025-00646 Page 2 of 8 Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicated Sales # 2 and # 5 are inferior parcels having no frontage on a main artery. PAO reconciled a value at $55.00/sf x 45,000-sf or $2,475,000. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $373,365, impact fees at $181,000, the land value is estimated at $2,475,000, entrepreneurial profit at $284,837 indicates a total cost of $3,314,202. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,817,071. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 15 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from January 2023 to August 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,200-sf to 5,198-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .39 acres to 2.99 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .04 to .11, the subject has a floor area ratio of .06. The buildings were built from 1979 to 2023. The unadjusted sales range from $500.00 to $2,290/sf, with a mean of $1,438/sf and a median of $1,643.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $1,200.00/sf of building area including land on 2,911-sf or $3,493,200. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,969,220. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of Circle K and retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents (NOI $/SF building) and (NOI $/sf land) of convenience stores with gas station, and ground lease sales in various cities in Florida. PAO indicated the ground lease sales were used to take into consideration the larger land size for convenience stores to accommodate the gas tanks and parking. The building sales sold from January 2023 to February 2025, the buildings range from 1,031-sf to 2025-00646 Page 3 of 8 8,752-sf with an FAR of .03 to .22; the rents range from $33.98/sf to $198.06/sf with a mean of $74.85/sf and a median of $74.74/sf. PAO estimated a market rent at $75.00/sf on a building size of 2,91 I-sf for an gross income of $218,325. PAO ground lease sales sold from April 2017 to December 2024 and 4 listings. The land size ranges from .32 acres to 15.47 acres with an FAR range of .02 to .26; the rents range from $2.30/sf to $12.98/sf with a mean of $5.36/sf and a median of $4.97/sf. PAO estimated a market rent at $4.85/sf on a land size of 45,000-sf for an gross income of $218,250. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 4.1%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject. The effective gross income (EGI) is $209,592 for the building area and $209,520 for the land area. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2.0% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income. The net operating income (NOI) based on the building area is $192,825 and the NOI based on the land area is $192,758. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from gas stations with convenience stores in Collier County and south west Florida. The sales occurred from January 2023 to February 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.30% to 8.00% with a mean of 5.30% and a median of 5.09%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. The Boulder Group cap rate on a 15-year lease, for a Circle K ranges from 5.5% to 5.8%; 7-Eleven stores range from 5.1 % to 5.4% on a 15 year lease; Wawa ranges from 4.85 to 5.1 % on a 15 year lease; Murphy USA ranges from 5.7% to 6% on a 15 year lease. PAO estimated a cap rate of 5.5% for the subject. The NOI (on the building area) of $192,825 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $3,505,903 less $10.00 tangible property indicates a value of $3,505,893. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,980,009. The NOI (on the land area) of $192,758 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $315041698. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,978,993. 2025-00646 Page 4 of 8 PAO reconciled a value by the Income Approach at $3,504,698. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,978,993. PAO's just value is $2,832,944 or $973.00/sf. PET presented a total of 36-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, photograph of the subject. PET presented the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach in summary form and a reconciliation of values. Under separate package, PET provided comparable land sales with details and photographs, comparable rental data with details and photographs, Improved sales with details and photographs and pages from Marshall Valuation pertaining to the cost of the cost estimate for the subject. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Cost Approach and provided 4 land sales located in Collier and Lee County. The land sales sold from March 2022 to November 2025. The sales range in land size from 1.07 acres to 9.93 acres and sold from $1.07/sf to $15.25/sf. PET estimated a land value at $1,676,700 or $37.26/sf. PET developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated cost of the building and site improvements is $266,440 plus land value of $1,676,700 for a total of $1,943,140. At the hearing PET added impact fees and entrepreneurial profit of 10% similar to PAO and verbally changed the value by the Cost Approach to $2,334,140 PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales. The sales occurred from March 2024 to November 2025. The sales range in building size from 11936-sf to 3,147-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .37 acres to .92 acres. The buildings were built from 1969 to 1985. The unadjusted sales range from $389.58 to $774.79/sf of building area. In the evidence package, PET provided 4 improved sales and include only 3 sales on the sale chart and analysis, however, at the hearing PET included all 4 sale and verbally changed the value from $486.08/sf to $592.58/sf or $1,725,000. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 3 rents of small buildings, located in Naples. The rents range from $26.00 to $33.81/sf triple net, the space ranges in size from 1,000-sf to 2,460-sf and are free standing buildings. PET provided 4 rents of Circle K convenience stores with gas stations in Collier County. The buildings were built from 1978 to 1995 and range in size from 2,400-sf to 3,840-sf. The rents range from $27.00/sf (in Everglades City) to $85.88/sf (in Naples). PET estimated a market rent of $85.88/sf on 2,911-sf for a gross income of $249,993.68. PET did not provide for vacancy. The effective gross income (EGI) is $249,993.68. 2025-00646 Page 5 of 8 PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI. Net operating income is $2241997.01. At the hearing, PET changed their cap rate from 7% to PAO's cap rate of 5.5%. PET capitalized the NOI of $224,997.01 at 5.50% for an estimated value of $4,090,854. PET requested a reconciled value of $2,681,248 with emphasis on the Cost Approach. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's cost did not include impact fees or entrepreneurial profit. PET's canopy cost in the Cost Approach is $39.50/sf, and PET depreciated the canopy 80%; this is a typical canopy for the subject; PAO used $100.00/sf for the canopy, which is high; at the hearing PAO verbally reduced the cost of the canopy by $32,000 for an indicated value by the Cost Approach of $3,282,202, less 15% COS indicates a value for PAO by the Cost Approach of $2,789,871. PAO indicated PET's land sales are inferior to the subject, being located in Lee County, a different market than Naples and the sales are located in less desirable areas not conducive to development of a gas station/convenience store. All of PET's improved sales are in secondary locations. One sale was purchased by a government entity in an inferior location to the subject. One sale used to be a 7-Eleven that closed, indication the location was not ideal for a gas/ convenience store. The sale in Lely is not as good a location as the subject. PAO indicated PET's Circle K rents do not indicate when the lease was negotiated. PET's comparable market rents are inferior in location to the subject; one comparable has been converted to an auto service store, none of the comparable rents are convenience store/ gas stations and indicate lower rents. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's land sales are not for gas station development. PAO's mean and median land values range from $44.53/sf to $47.15/sf, PAO used $55.00/sf, much higher than the mean or median. PAO responded and indicated two of the sales used in their analysis are rear parcels and sold for much less; also, the subject has frontage on Pine Ridge Road, a heavily travelled road in close proximity to the I-75 interchange. PET indicated PAO's improved sales are newer than the subject, PET used sales closer in size and age to the subject. PET indicated, in Petition #2025-00642, which was heard previously on the same hearing day, that PAO used $1,100/sf on a building area of 2,400-sf, the subject is slightly larger at 2,911-sf, is the same age, in the same location and PAO used $1,200/sf for subject building area, PET indicated the price/sf should be the same for both properties. PET indicated PAO's pages 100-103 provided information on national convenience stores from the Boulder Group that indicate rents in the range of $51.67/sf to $80.00/sf and PAO's Collier County Retail Analysis -page 20, indicates rents from $24.00 to $31.00/sf. PAO responded and indicated the rents in the Collier County Retail Analysis are for all retail rents in the county and not specific to convenience store/gas stations, which are typically higher. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO changed the Cost Approach value to $2,789,871 after cost of sales and this value is below the just value. SM has 2025-00646 Page 6 of 8 applied the same rate for the Sales Comparison as used in Petition #2025-00642 at $11100/sf x 2911-sf = $31202,100, less 15% COS is $2,721,785. For the Income Approach, PAO used $70.00/sf on Petition #2025-00642, which is similar in size location and age to the subject. SM used $70.00/sf on the subject 2,911-sf, which indicates a gross income of $203,770, SM deducted 4% vacancy for an effective gross income (EGI)of $195,619, less 8% of EGI for expenses indicates a net operating income (NOI) of $179,970; the NOI capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $3,272,175, less 15% COS indicates a value of $2,781,349. The average of the three values is $2,764,335 and the median is $2,781,349. SM has estimated a value of $2,781,350 rounded. PAO is not entitled to the Presumption of Correctness, PAO's value is overstated. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM has revised the value to $2,781,350 rounded Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-00646: 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 did not arrive at the assessment by complying with the criteria of Section 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The PAO did not establish the presumption of correctness. The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. 2025-00646 Page 7 of 8 SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $2,781,350 rounded. 2025-00646 Page 8 of 8 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00647 Parcel ID 63000320002 Petitioner name DELTA PROPERTY TAX ADVISORS Property 6615 DUDLEYDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34105 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,645,804.00 2,645,804.00 2,645,804.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,986,799.00 1,986,799.00 1,986,799.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,986,799.00 1,986,799.00 1,986,799.00 *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 01/17/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00647 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00647: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Jaden Randall, from Delta Property Tax Advisors, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,645,804. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-average retail store and gas station with a 756-sf car wash, the canopy is 4,500-sf, and the building size is 4,197- sf. The land size is 45,045-sf or 1.03 acres. The building was built in 1988. The property is occupied by Circle K. The property is located just east of Interstate 75 (I-75), with an exit off I-75 and Pine Ridge Road. The property has frontage on Pine Ridge, however access to the subject is off a service road. The subject is located at 6615 Dudley Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 109 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; 2025-00647 Page 2 of 7 as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicated Sales # 2 and # 5 are inferior parcels having no frontage on a main artery. PAO reconciled a value at $55.00/sf x 45,045-sf or $2,477,475. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $291,615, impact fees at $222,000, the land value is estimated at $2,477,475, entrepreneurial profit at $276,909 indicates a total cost of $3,267,999. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,777,799. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 15 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from January 2023 to August 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,200-sf to 5,198-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .39 acres to 2.99 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .04 to .11, the subject has a floor area ratio of .09. The buildings were built from 1979 to 2023. The unadjusted sales range from $500.00 to $2,290/sf, with a mean of $1,438/sf and a median of $1,643.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value based on the size and age at $900.00/sf of building area including land on 4,197-sf or $3,777,300. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,210,705. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of Circle K and retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents (NOI $/SF building) and (NOI $/sf land) of convenience stores with gas station, and ground lease sales in various cities in Florida. PAO indicated the ground lease sales were used to take into consideration the larger land size for convenience stores to accommodate the gas tanks and parking. The building 2025-00647 Page 3 of 7 sales sold from January 2023 to February 2025, the buildings range from 1,031-sf to 8,752-sf with an FAR of .03 to .22; the rents range from $33.98/sf to $198.06/sf with a mean of $74.85/sf and a median of $74.74/sf. Based on the age, size and location, PAO estimated a market rent at $55.00/sf on a building size of 4,197-sf for an gross income of $230,835. PAO ground lease sales sold from April 2017 to December 2024 and 4 listings. The land size ranges from .32 acres to 15.47 acres with an FAR range of .02 to .26; the rents range from $2.30/sf to $12.98/sf with a mean of $5.36/sf and a median of $4.97/sf. PAO estimated a market rent at $4.85/sf on a land size of 45,045-sf for an gross income of $2181468. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 4.1%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject. The effective gross income (EGI) is $221,602 for the building area and $209,730 for the land area. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2.0% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income. The net operating income (NOI) based on the building area is $203,873 and the NOI based on the land area is $192,951. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from gas stations with convenience stores in Collier County and south west Florida. The sales occurred from January 2023 to February 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.30% to 8.00% with a mean of 5.30% and a median of 5.09%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. The Boulder Group cap rate on a 15-year lease, for a Circle K ranges from 5.5% to 5.8%; 7-Eleven stores range from 5.1 % to 5.4% on a 15 year lease; Wawa ranges from 4.85 to 5.1 % on a 15 year lease; Murphy USA ranges from 5.7% to 6% on a 15 year lease. PAO estimated a cap rate of 5.5% for the subject. The NOI (on the building area) of $203,873 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $3,706,790 less $10.00 tangible property indicates a value of $3,706,781. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,150,763. The NOI (on the land area) of $192,951 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $315081203. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,981,972. 2025-00647 Page 4 of 7 PAO reconciled a value by the Income Approach at $3,508,203. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $2,981,972. PAO's just value is $2,645,804 or $630.00/sf. 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 total of 36-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, photograph of the subject. PET presented the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach in summary form and a reconciliation of values. Under separate package, PET provided comparable land sales with details and photographs, comparable rental data with details and photographs, Improved sales with details and photographs and pages from Marshall Valuation pertaining to the cost of the cost estimate for the subject. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Cost Approach and provided 4 land sales located in Collier and Lee County. The land sales sold from March 2022 to November 2025. The sales range in land size from 1.07 acres to 9.93 acres and sold from $1.07/sf to $15.25/sf. PET estimated a land value at $1,621,620 or $36.00/sf. PET developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated cost of the building and site improvements is $220,971 plus land value of $1,621,620 for a total value of $1,842,591. At the hearing PET added impact fees and entrepreneurial profit of 10% similar to PAO and verbally changed the value by the Cost Approach to $2,264,591. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales. The sales occurred from March 2024 to November 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,936-sf to 3,147-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .37 acres to .92 acres. The buildings were built from 1969 to 1985. The unadjusted sales range from $389.58 to $774.79/sf of building area. In the evidence package, PET provided 4 improved sales and include only 3 sales on the sale chart and analysis, however, at the hearing PET included all 4 sale and verbally changed the value from $486.08/sf to $559.92/sf or $2,350,000. PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 3 rents of small buildings, located in Naples. The rents range from $26.00 to $33.81/sf triple net, the space ranges in size from 1,000-sf to 2,460-sf and are free standing buildings. PET provided 4 rents of Circle K convenience stores with gas stations in Collier County. The buildings were built from 1978 to 1995 and range in size from 2,400-sf to 3,840-s£ The 2025-00647 Page 5 of 7 rents range from $27.00/sf ( in Everglades City) to $85.88/sf (in Naples). PET estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf on 4,197-sf for a gross income of $188,865. PET did not provide for vacancy. The effective gross income (EGI) is $188,865. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI. Net operating income (NOI) is $169,978.50. At the hearing, PET changed their cap rate from 7% to PAO's cap rate of 5.5%. PET capitalized the NOI of $169,978.50 at 5.50% for an estimated value of $3,090,518. PET requested a reconciled value of $2,542.686. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's cost did not include impact fees or entrepreneurial profit. PET's canopy cost in the Cost Approach is $39.50/sf, and PET depreciated the canopy 80%; this is a typical canopy for the subject; PAO used $100.00/sf for the canopy, which is high; at the hearing PAO verbally reduced the cost of the canopy by $32,000 for an indicated value by the Cost Approach of $3,235,999, less 15% COS indicates a value for PAO by the Cost Approach of $2,750,599. PAO indicated PET's land sales are inferior to the subject, being located in Lee County, a different market than Naples and the sales are located in less desirable areas not conducive to development of a gas station/convenience store. All of PET's improved sales are in secondary locations. One sale was purchased by a government entity in an inferior location to the subject. One sale used to be a 7-Eleven that closed, indication the location was not ideal for a gas/ convenience store. The sale in Lely is not as good a location as the subject. PAO indicated PET's Circle K rents do not indicate when the lease was negotiated. PET's comparable market rents are inferior in location to the subject; one comparable has been converted to an auto service store, none of the comparable rents are convenience store/ gas stations and indicate lower rents. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's land sales are not for gas station development. PAO's mean and median land values range from $44.53/sf to $47.15/sf, PAO used $55.00/sf, much higher than the mean or median. PAO responded and indicated two of the sales used in their analysis are rear parcels and sold for much less; also, the subject has frontage on Pine Ridge Road, a heavily travelled road in close proximity to the I-75 interchange. PET questioned PAO's improved value at $900.00/sf, PAO indicated this rate was based on the larger size of the building, older age of building having been built in 1988 and access off a service road. PET indicated PAO's improved sales are newer than the subject, PET used sales closer in size and age to the subject. PET indicated PAO's pages 98-100 provided information on national convenience stores from the Boulder Group that indicate rents in the range of $51.67/sf to $80.00/sf and PAO's Collier County Retail Analysis -page 20, indicates rents from $24.00 to $31.00/sf. PAO responded and indicated the rents in the Collier County Retail Analysis are for all retail rents in the county and not specific to convenience store/gas stations, which are typically 2025-00647 Page 6 of 7 higher. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO and PET provided support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO revised the Cost Approach downward to account for the canopy and the revised value still supports the just value. PET's land value is understated, PET's land sales are located at a distance from the subject in a different market and are inferior to the subject; PET did not include the value of the car wash in the cost. PET's improved sales are not comparable to the subject in location and use. PET's income at $45.00/sf is low for a gas station/convenience store in this location, PET provided leases for properties similar to the subject in the $62.00 to $86.00/sf, but did not use these rents. 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 2025-00647: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00647 Page 7 of 7 W10 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Collier County FLORIDA DR-485V R. 11 /23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2025-00648 Parcel ID 66679700843 Petitioner name DELTA PROPERTY TAX ADVISORS Property 5606 TAVILLA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address NAPLES, FL 34110 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 3,310,082.00 3,310,082.00 3,310,082.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,768,148.00 2,768,148.00 2,768,148.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,768,148.00 2,768,148.00 2,768,148.00 *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 01/17/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2026 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 website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com./a: ❑ 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 2025-00648 Page 1 of 7 Findings of Fact for Petition 2025-00648: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Chris DelPo. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Jaden Randall, from Delta Property Tax Advisors, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $31310,082. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single user, one-story, class C-average retail store and gas station with a 1,500-sf car wash, the canopy is 3,572-sf, the building size is 3,675-sf. The land size is 68,825-sf or 1.58 acres. The building was built in 2003. The property is occupied by Circle K. The property is located just west of Interstate 75 (I-75), with an exit off I-75 at Immokalee Road. The property has frontage on Immokalee Road, but no direct access. The subject is located at 5606 Tavilla Circle, Naples FL. As part of PAO's evidence, PAO presented a report on Compliance Statement (193.011 Florida Statute) Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data for the 2025 Tax Roll. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County's statement of compliance with Section 193.011 F.S., Florida real property guidelines. The 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%. PAO presented a report containing 113 pages. The report included a cover page with photograph of subject, the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information and scope of work, site and improvement description, market analysis, highest and best use, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the building, photographs, location maps. PAO included a regional and neighborhood analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, and included a land sales chart with location map and a detailed description of each sale; 2025-00648 Page 2 of 7 as well as a summary of the building cost. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided comparable improved sales with location map and a detailed description of each improved sale. PAO developed the Income Approach, and provided rents from several sources, as well as analysis of vacancy rates, operating expenses and capitalization rates. PAO reconciled the values. The addenda contains the legal description, impact fee calculator, market data support and 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 6 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples. The land sales occurred from September 2023 to March 2025. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 158,558-sf, the unadjusted sales, ranges from $35.02/sf to $68.95/sf. The mean of all the sales is $47.15/sf and the median is $44.53/sf. PAO indicated Sales # 2 and # 5 are inferior parcels having no frontage on a main artery. PAO reconciled a value at $55.00/sf x 68,825-sf or $3,785,375. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $597,808, impact fees at $150,000, the land value is estimated at $3,785,375, entrepreneurial profit at $438,318 indicates a total cost of $4,971,501. Special Magistrate (SM) deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $4,225,775. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 15 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from January 2023 to August 2025. The sales range in building size from 2,200-sf to 5,198-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .39 acres to 2.99 acres; with a Floor area ratio ranging from .04 to .11, the subject has a floor area ratio of .05. The buildings were built from 1979 to 2023. The unadjusted sales range from $500.00 to $2,290/sf, with a mean of $1,438/sf and a median of $1,643.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value based on the size and age at $1,200.00/sf of building area including land on 3,675-sf or $4141000. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,748,500. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, of Circle K and retail buildings, which were not accepted by SM due to the confidential nature of the rents and the lack of an address. PAO provided market extracted net rents (NOI $/SF building) and (NOI $/sf land) of convenience stores with gas station, and ground lease sales in various cities in Florida. PAO indicated the ground lease sales were used to take into consideration the larger land size for convenience stores to accommodate the gas tanks and parking. The building 2025-00648 Page 3 of 7 sales sold from January 2023 to February 2025, the buildings range from 1,031-sf to 8,752-sf with an FAR of .03 to .22; the rents range from $33.98/sf to $198.06/sf with a mean of $74.85/sf and a median of $74.74/sf. Based on the age, size and location, PAO estimated a market rent at $75.00/sf on a building size of 3,675-sf for an gross income of $2751625. PAO ground lease sales sold from April 2017 to December 2024 and 4 listings. The land size ranges from .32 acres to 15.47 acres with an FAR range of .02 to .26; the rents range from $2.30/sf to $12.98/sf with a mean of $5.36/sf and a median of $4.97/sf. PAO estimated a market rent at $4.00/sf on a land size of 68,825-sf for an gross income of $2751300. PAO provided a vacancy rate analysis, for retail space in Collier County for 2024, which indicates an average vacancy of 3.6%. Vacancy data from national real estate market surveys range from 3.7% to 4.1%. PAO estimated a vacancy at 4% for the subject. The effective gross income (EGI) is $264,600 for the building area and $264,288 for the land area. The subject is being valued on a triple net lease basis where the tenant pays for most of the expenses. The owner is typically responsible for miscellaneous expenses estimated at 2.0% and reserves at 4.8% for a total expense at 8% of effective gross income. The net operating income (NOI) based on the building area is $243,432 and the NOI based on the land area is $243,145. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from gas stations with convenience stores in Collier County and south west Florida. The sales occurred from January 2023 to February 2025. The cap rates for these sales range from 4.30% to 8.00% with a mean of 5.30% and a median of 5.09%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail buildings in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such a, LSI (Collier County Retail at 5.5%), CRE (Collier County retail at 5.6%). Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC, the average (non -loaded) cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.87%. The Boulder Group cap rate on a 15-year lease, for a Circle K ranges from 5.5% to 5.8%; 7-Eleven stores range from 5.1 % to 5.4% on a 15 year lease; Wawa ranges from 4.85 to 5.1 % on a 15 year lease; Murphy USA ranges from 5.7% to 6% on a 15 year lease. PAO estimated a cap rate of 5.5% for the subject. The NOI (on the building area) of $243,432 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $4,426,036 less $10.00 tangible property indicates a value of $4,426,027. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,762,123. The NOI (on the land area) of $243,145 capitalized at 5.5% indicates a value of $4,4201817. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,757,694. 2025-00648 Page 4 of 7 PAO reconciled a value by the Income Approach at $4,420,817. SM deducted for cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $3,757,694. PAO's just value is $3,310,082 or $901.00/sf. 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 total of 36-pages which consists of a cover page with summary of evidence, photograph of the subject. PET presented the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach in summary form and a reconciliation of values. Under separate package, PET provided comparable land sales with details and photographs, comparable rental data with details and photographs, Improved sales with details and photographs and pages from Marshall Valuation pertaining to the cost of the cost estimate for the subject. PET's evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Cost Approach and provided 4 land sales located in Collier and Lee County. The land sales sold from March 2022 to November 2025. The sales range in land size from 1.07 acres to 9.93 acres and sold from $1.07/sf to $15.25/sf. PET estimated a land value at $2,180,376 or $31.68/sf. PET developed the building cost using Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated cost of the building and site improvements is $447,678 plus land value of $2,180,376 for a total value of $2,628,054. At the hearing PET added impact fees and entrepreneurial profit of 10% similar to PAO and verbally changed the value by the Cost Approach to $3,048,054. PET presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 4 improved sales. The sales occurred from March 2024 to November 2025. The sales range in building size from 1,936-sf to 3,147-sf, the land size for these sales ranges from .37 acres to .92 acres. The buildings were built from 1969 to 1985. The unadjusted sales range from $389.58 to $774.79/sf of building area. In the evidence package, PET provided 4 improved sales and include only 3 sales on the sale chart and analysis, however, at the hearing PET included all 4 sale and verbally changed the value from $486.08/sf to $621.50/sf or $2,284,012 PET presented the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 3 rents of small buildings, located in Naples. The rents range from $26.00 to $33.81/sf triple net, the space ranges in size from 1,000-sf to 2,460-sf and are free standing buildings. PET provided 4 rents of Circle K convenience stores with gas stations in Collier County. The buildings were built from 1978 to 1995 and range in size from 2,400-sf to 3,840-s£ The 2025-00648 Page 5 of 7 rents range from $27.00/sf ( in Everglades City) to $85.88/sf (in Naples). PET estimated a market rent of $45.00/sf on 3,675-sf for a gross income of $165,375. PET did not provide for vacancy. The effective gross income (EGI) is $165,375. PET estimated stabilized operating expenses at 10% of EGI. Net operating income (NOI) is $148,837.50. At the hearing, PET changed their cap rate from 7% to PAO's cap rate of 5.5%. PET capitalized the NOI of $148,837.50 at 5.50% for an estimated value of $2,706,136. PET requested a reconciled value of $2,652,607. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET's cost did not include impact fees or entrepreneurial profit. PET did not include the car wash in their cost analysis. PET's canopy cost in the Cost Approach is $39.50/sf, and PET depreciated the canopy 80%; this is a typical canopy for the subject; PAO used $100.00/sf for the canopy, which is high; at the hearing PAO verbally reduced the cost of the canopy by $32,000 for an indicated value by the Cost Approach of $4,939,501 less 15% COS indicates a value for PAO by the Cost Approach of $4,198,575. PAO indicated PET's land sales are inferior to the subject, being located in Lee County, a different market than Naples and the sales are located in less desirable areas not conducive to development of a gas station/convenience store. All of PET's improved sales are in secondary locations. One sale was purchased by a government entity in an inferior location to the subject. One sale used to be a 7-Eleven that closed, indicating the location was not ideal for a gas/convenience store. The sale in Lely is not as good a location as the subject. PAO indicated PET's Circle K rents do not indicate when the lease was negotiated. PET's comparable market rents are inferior in location to the subject; one comparable has been converted to an auto service store, none of the comparable rents are convenience store/gas stations and indicate lower rents. As rebuttal, PET indicated PAO's land sales are not for gas station development. PAO's mean and median land values range from $44.53/sf to $47.15/sf, PAO used $55.00/sf, much higher than the mean or median. PAO responded and indicated two of the sales used in their analysis are rear parcels and sold for much less; also, the subject has frontage on Immokalee Road, a heavily travelled road in close proximity to the I-75 interchange. PET questioned PAO's improved value at $1,200.00/sf, PAO indicated this rate was based on the larger size of the building, newer age of building having been built in 2003. PET indicated PAO's pages 103-106 provided information on national convenience stores from the Boulder Group that indicate rents in the range of $51.67/sf to $80.00/sf and PAO's Collier County Retail Analysis -page 20, indicates rents from $24.00 to $31.00/sf. PAO responded and indicated the rents in the Collier County Retail Analysis are for all retail rents in the county and not specific to convenience store/gas stations, which are typically higher. 2025-00648 Page 6 of 7 Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO and PET provided support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO revised the Cost Approach downward to account for the canopy and the revised value supports the just value. PET's land value is understated, PET's land sales are located at a distance from the subject in a different market and are inferior to the subject; PET did not include the value of the car wash in the cost. PET's improved sales are not comparable to the subject in location and use. PET's income at $45.00/sf is low for a gas station/convenience store in this location, PET provided leases for properties similar to the subject in the $62.00 to $86.00/sf, but did not use these rents. 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 2025-00648: Florida Law allows 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 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. 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 the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. PET's value is understated. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld and the petition denied. 2025-00648 Page 7 of 7 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00673 Parcel ID 72650015185 Petitioner name JAMES L. SAVAIANO Property 1782 RIBBON FANLN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 466,507.00 466,507.00 466,507.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 466,507.00 466,507.00 466,507.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,722.00 50,722.00 1 50,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 415,785.00 1 415,785.00 1 415,785.00 *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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 01/09/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/12/2026 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00673 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact: This petition is an appeal from a Certificate for Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference issued by the Property Appraiser. Petitioner is James L. Savaiano. Mr. Savaiano was not present for the hearing but provided his evidence to be considered in this matter. The Property Appraiser's Office ("PAO") was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. The PAO offered a 18-page package of documents which were relevant and were admitted as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner's evidence was admitted without objection as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, and consists of a 2-page summary of Petitioner's attempts to procure a new homestead after selling his house in 2020, the first page of three sales contracts, a termination of one of the contracts, and proof of mailing the evidence to the VAB Clerk. Petitioner enjoyed a homestead exemption on property at 1782 Ribbon Fan Lane, Naples, Florida, he purchased with his wife in 2013 (PAO Ex. 1, 8-10). In July 2020, Petitioner sold the property. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 11-12) Petitioner intended to build a new home but was unable to do so as the contractor would not commit to a completion date due to a shortage of supplies and volatility in material costs. (P. Ex. 1, p. 1) After the construction contract fell through, Petitioner attempted to purchase a home. Petitioner finally purchased a home in Marion County in October of 2024 and applied for homestead on December 27, 2024, for 2025. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 15-16) On September 2, 2025, Marion County Property Appraiser requested a Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference from the PAO. (PAO EX. 2, p. 17) On September 2, 2025, the PAO completed and delivered its Certificate for Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference stating that the applicant had not received a homestead exemption in the past 3 years. (PAO Ex. 1, p.18) Conclusions of Law: Section 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., governs the transfer of homestead assessment difference. This statutory section provides that "property assessed under this section shall be assessed at less than just value when the person who establishes a new homestead has received a homestead exemption as of January 1 of any of the 3 immediately preceding years." The statute couldn't be clearer in this regard. Petitioner last received his homestead exemption in 2020. (PAO Ex. 1) Petitioner would have had to establish a new homestead no later than 2023 in order to transfer his homestead assessment difference. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the credible and relevant evidence presented that the Property Appraiser's Certificate in this instance was incorrectly completed or improper on some basis. The Certificate was accurate. Petitioner last had a homestead exemption in 2020, well beyond the three-year limitation 2025-00673 Page 2 of 3 imposed by the statute. Although Petitioner's evidence was credible to show that he attempted to procure a new homestead sooner, that showing was unfortunately irrelevant in this appeal. As Ms. Ybaceta correctly argued, this Special Magistrate has no authority to grant the waiver requested by Petitioner, regardless of his efforts to comply. The law simply does not provide a hardship exception. The totality of the credible and relevant evidence presented by the parties was insufficient to show that Petitioner was entitled to the transfer of homestead assessment difference. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the Petition be denied. 2025-00673 Page 3 of 3 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00678 Parcel ID 63944000103 Petitioner name STARABILITY FNDN INC Property 2655 NORTHBROOKE DR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 7,275,341.00 7,275,341.00 7,275,341.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,275,341.00 7,275,341.00 7,275,341.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,275,341.00 1 7,275,341.00 1 7,275,341.00 *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, specif'Yharitable ❑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) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 11/06/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/10/2025 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00678 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is STARability Foundation, Inc., who owns property located at 2655 Northbrooke Drive, Naples, Florida. This property is comprised of two separately identified tax parcels, and Petitioner appeals the denial of a charitable exemption as to both these parcels. As the evidence applies to both, the parties agreed to consolidate the two petitions for purposes of this hearing and recommendation. Consequently, the recommendations will be largely identical to each other. Petition 574 pertains to the parking area, grounds and greenspace. Petition 678 concerns only the building. Petitioner was represented at the hearing by its CEO, Karen Govern, and its attorney, Tristen Cavanaugh. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. Both Earle and Ybaceta remained under oath from earlier hearings. Ms. Govern was sworn in. The PAO offered its 71-page evidence package which was admitted into evidence, without objection, as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner originally uploaded a 213 page evidence package in ARIA, but offered each exhibit individually from his original evidence package. For purposes of cross-reference, the page numbers from the original packet are included in the parenthetical following the exhibit description. These eleven exhibits were all admitted without objection. P.Ex.I was an email dated 10/08/25 (which was pages 6 -7 of the original evidence upload into ARIA). P.Ex.2 is an email dated 012425 (pages 8-9); P.Ex.3 is an email dated 020425 (pages 15-16); P.Ex.4 is a copy of Staff Minutes from the Kickoff Meeting held on 050825 (pp. 17-20); P.Ex.5 is a Lisa Kahn Designs memo regarding a design meeting held 012825 (pp. 21-22); P.Ex.7 is an email dated 020525 by Govern (pp. 23-25); P.Ex.8 is the Request for Qualifications and Fee Proposals; P.Ex. 9 is the PAO Disapproval (p. 34); P. Ex. 10 is the original application for charitable use (pp. 42-205); P. Ex. 11 is Petition 678 pertaining to the contiguous parcel containing the building. Included in Ex. 11 was the Notice of Disapproval dated April 30, 2025. The Petitioner is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that provides vocational training, continuing education, teamwork, social engagement and community involvement for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. [P. Ex. 10] Southwest Florida Music Education Center, which previously used a portion of the building, merged into STARability Foundation on April 1, 2024. [Govern] Petitioner is an exempt entity under Florida Statute. [Govern; Ybaceta; P. Ex. 10] Petitioner applied for a charitable exemption on October 3, 2024, under s. 196.196, Fla. Stat., for Parcel Nos. 63944000080 and 639440000103 (hereinafter referred to as "the Property"). (P. Ex. 10; PAO Ex. 1, p. 9-12] The application was denied on April 30, 2025 on grounds that the Property was not being used for exempt purposes on January 1, 2025, per the cited provisions of s. 196.196. [P. Ex. 10; PAO Ex. 1, pp. 53-551 The Disapproval was sufficient to advise Petitioner of the basis for denial and met the requirements of s. 196.193(5)(c), Fla. Stat. As such, the Disapproval was valid. 2025-00678 Page 2 of 6 The building was purchased by Petitioner from Hodges University, Inc. in 2024. The Property at the time of sale was subject to a lease with Montessori Academy of Naples, Inc., for the north and south wings of the first floor of the building and the first floor lobby. Although the original lease included 20,393 square feet of the second floor, this portion of the lease expired on June 30, 2021 and Montessori no longer occupies any portion of the second floor. The term of the lease for the first floor runs until June 30, 2030. [PAO Ex. 1, pp.33-34; Govern] The lease was assigned to Petitioner as part of the purchase but the Assignment of Lease was not provided. [Govern] Per Ms. Govern's testimony, the first floor lobby is no longer being leased by Montessori. [Govern] As part of the lease, Montessori has use of the parking areas which are part of Parcel 63944000080. [Govern] Since the Property's purchase, Petitioner has initiated its process to renovate the building. Such renovations are "essential" to the function of the building. [Govern] Petitioner has replaced the roof, HVAC system, installed hurricane windows and changed some of the interior. [Govern] The Design Committee "kicked off' in late January, and a formal Request for Qualifications and Fee Proposals was issued on February 14, 2025. [Govern; P. Ex. 8] In addition to efforts to make the Property suitable for Petitioner's purposes, Petitioner has used the Property in the following manner: conducted social and recreational activities, primarily a Field Day event in August 2024; held three MANDT (crisis intervention) training sessions for a dozen or so employees in September and October of 2024; held meetings with employees on December 13, 2024, and January 22 through 24, 2025; and conducted tours of the Property for potential donors. [Govern] The PAO inspected the Property on November 21, 2024. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, p. 41] Photos did show the erection of a canvass sign announcing the future home of STARability, but the interior rooms, although containing some classroom furniture, looked unused. The lobby still contained the Hodges University logo. The PAO again inspected on December 30, 2024, and observed no change in the Property. [Ybaceta] The Property was again inspected on September 18, 2025, and the photos showed the organization of some classroom furniture and a reception desk as well as some office equipment. [PAO Ex. 1, pp. 50-53]. These activities still appear to be preliminary to a full opening. Petitioner's website indicated that Petitioner intends to open its doors in the fall of 2025. [Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1, p. 60] As of the date of the hearing, that had not yet occurred. Conclusions of Law: Unless expressly exempted, all real property in the state is subject to taxation. § 196.001 (1), Fla. Stat. (2005). While certain properties may qualify for an exemption, tax 2025-00678 Page 3 of 6 exemptions are highly disfavored and are strictly construed against the party claiming them. See Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 642 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 1994). The claimant has the burden to show entitlement to tax exemption, and any ambiguity should be resolved against the taxpayer and against exemption. Volusia Cty. v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 1976); Markham v. PPI, Inc., 843 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Section 196.192(1), Fla. Stat., states that "[A]11 property owned by an exempt entity, including educational institutions, and used exclusively for exempt purposes shall be totally exempt from ad valorem taxation." "Use of property for exempt purposes" is defined in s. 196.012(1), Fla. Stat., as "predominant or exclusive use of property owned by an exempt entity for educational, literary, scientific, religious, charitable or governmental purposes as defined in this chapter." Petitioner's application for both parcels was denied because Petitioner was not using the Property for exempt purposes under the statute. In order to qualify as totally exempt from taxation, the owner of the property must be an exempt entity and the use must be an exempt use, as these terms are defined by Florida law. There is no dispute here about Petitioner's non-profit status as a 501(3)(c) private charity under the Internal Revenue Code and that its use for operation of STARability, i.e., providing assistance in the social, developmental and educational needs of disabled individuals, would constitute an exempt use. The dispute is whether this use constitutes the predominate use of the Property. Before resolving the question as to whether the use of the Property was predominately for exempt purposes, the Special Magistrate must first consider whether the PAO's denial is this instance meets the requirements of s. 196.193(5), Fla. Stat. See Rule 12D-9.027 (4), Fla. Admin. Code. Section 196.193(5)(c), states that when notifying a property owner that an application exemption has been denied, "[T]he notification must be drafted in such a way that a reasonable person can understand specific attributes of the applicant or the applicant's use of the subject property which formed the basis for the denial." Due to the overall lack of use of those portions of the building not leased to Montessori and the sporadic use of the parking area and grounds, the statement that the property was not being used for exempt purposes as of January 1 is sufficient to provide Petitioner with the notice required under the statute. Consequently, the Special Magistrate concludes that the denial by the PAO is valid. "Predominate use of property" is specifically defined in 196.012(3) as "use of property for exempt purpose in excess of 50 percent but less than exclusive." This definition would appear to allow Petitioner to lease a portion of the Property to Montessori and still claim a predominate use for exempt purposes, assuming the leased portion does not exceed 50% of the overall property. Interestingly, no evidence was presented to confirm that the first floor use by Montessori does not exceed 50% of the overall property size. However, one can reasonably assume that the first floor and second floors of the building are identical in size. With Petitioner in control of the second floor, first floor lobby and the entire grounds, Petitioner would have use of more than 50% of the Property. 2025-00678 Page 4 of 6 Petitioner argues that its planning and maintenance activities are sufficient to constitute a "use" under the statute. Although Petitioner was not physically using the entire second floor for its operations, it had possession and control, and was maintaining and preparing the Property as of January 1, 2025. [Cavanaugh] Petitioner provided several service contracts for equipment and systems maintenance, grounds maintenance and facilities management. [P. Ex.10] However, maintenance of the building and grounds is not a determinative factor. If maintenance of property were sufficient, a church or school would need only to maintain a property without conducting a single religious ceremony or academic class in order to qualify. This is clearly not the law. As for the planning efforts undertaken by Petitioner, although significant, those, too, do not constitute a use as contemplated by the statute. As Ms. Ybaceta pointed out in the hearing, the statute does not permit the PAO to consider affirmative steps to develop the property in its determination of use, unlike with other exempt uses should as affordable housing. See, e.g., s. 196.196(5)(a). The Special Magistrate agrees and notes that where the legislature affirmatively amended provisions to permit the consideration of affirmative steps in certain exempt categories, its failure to include these as to charitable uses is deemed intentional and cannot be disregarded. Section 196.196(1), Fla. Stat., provides some guidance in this determination and states: "(1)In determination of whether an applicant is actually using all or a portion of its property predominately for a charitable ... purpose the following criteria shall be applied: (a) the nature and extent of the charitable... activity of the applicant, a comparison of such activities with all other activities of the organization, and the utilization of the property for charitable... activities compared with other uses. (b) The extent to which the property has been made available to groups who perform exempt purposes at a charge that is equal to or less than the cost of providing the facilities for their use. Such rental or service shall be considered as part of the exempt purposes of the applicant." Here, the use of the word "actually" is telling, and confirms that something more than planning and maintenance activities is required. In reviewing the decisional law addressing questions of whether an "exempt" use of a property is a predominate use, and applying the provisions of s. 196.196(1), it is clear that the activity of the charitable organization is critical in this analysis. Here, Petitioner conducts activities for intellectually and developmentally disabled persons. Naturally these activities require a number of support services in order to occur, such as training of staff and promotion and solicitation of charitable donations. Petitioner presented credible and relevant evidence as to the occurrence of some of these support services in 2024, including staff training on three separate occasions in the fall of 2024, and a large activity day for an estimated 50 participants in August of 2024. (It should be noted that Field Day also served as a core function of Petitioner.) Although the Property was not yet open for the housing of administrative and support staff and the conduct of classes and activities, one cannot say that the foregoing uses were not exempt uses, as they were directly related to, and necessary for the charitable activity conducted by Petitioner. As 2025-00678 Page 5 of 6 for the renovations, these did not commence until 2025 and there was insufficient evidence as to how these renovations related to the core activity of Petitioner. Although Petitioner testified that major repairs were conducted on the building, such as replacement of the roofing and HVAC systems, and replacement of windows, these cannot be said to be directly or exclusively related to the charitable use, as such repairs were typical maintenance for a building. (The same could be said about renovations to the interior of the building.) Moreover, this building is in part being used for commercial purposes. Hausman v. First Baptist Church, Inc., 513 So, 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) and Robbins v. Fla. Con£ Ass'n of Seventh Day Adventists, 614 So. 2d 893 (Fla 3d DCA 1994) provide some guidance in this regard. These cases dealt with church owned property that was yet undeveloped but sporadically being used for religious purposes, primarily prayer sessions. Here the courts concluded that the use, although not continuous and without improvements, was not incidental to the religious (exempt) purpose and therefore was sufficient as an exempt use of the property. An important factor in these two decisions was the fact that the property was being exclusively used in this manner. The courts did not have to consider the other activities taking place on the property. In short, there was no need for the court to compare these uses with "all other activities of the organization," as mandated by s. 196.196(1), Fla. Stat. This is not the case in this appeal. Because a substantial portion of the Property is being used by a commercial tenant, the sporadic uses made by Petitioner in 2024 must be weighed against the other uses of the Property. As an example, in weighing the use of the parking area and grounds parcel (Petition 574) one cannot say that the conduct of a singular event called Field Day predominates over the daily uses of the parking area by the commercial tenant. In looking at the exempt activities as a whole, they are simply insufficient to constitute a predominant use of the Property. While the Special Magistrate does not believe that class activity must be ongoing as of January 1, 2025, any support services directly related to the charitable use must exceed the half dozen meetings and events that took place. Had interior renovations that were directly related to the core activities of Petitioner begun in earnest in 2024, the result may have been different. The Petitioner had the burden of proof in this proceeding to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of a charitable exemption under s.196.196, Fla. Stat. was wrong. In weighing the totality of the credible and relevant evidence provided by the parties, the Special Magistrate concludes that the evidence was insufficient and Petitioner failed to meet its burden in this proceeding. Therefore, the Special Magistrate recommends that Petition 678 be denied. 2025-00678 Page 6 of 6 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00684 Parcel ID 29306002482 Petitioner name HAUER FAMILY TRUST Property 14231 GALLEYCT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34114 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,064,739.00 1,064,739.00 1,064,739.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,064,739.00 1,064,739.00 1,064,739.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 55,722.00 55,722.00 1 55,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,009,017.00 1 1,009,017.00 1 1,009,017.00 *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 ❑Gther,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 E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 01/09/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/12/2026 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00684 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: This petition is an appeal from a failure of the Property Appraiser to grant an application for a service -related total disability tax exemption. Petitioner is Kristian Hauer, who appeared telephonically. The Property Appraiser's Office ("PAO") was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. All parties were sworn. The PAO offered a 22-page package of documents which were admitted, without objection, as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner agreed with the underlying facts presented in PAO's evidence package. (Hauer) Petitioner's evidence consisted of a 22- page package which included a copy of an expired VA ID card, communication from the VA and a VA Determination letter. These documents were admitted, without objection, as P. Exhibit 1. Petitioner owns property located at 14231 Galley Court, Naples, Florida, as Trustee of the Hauer Family Trust. This property has enjoyed a homestead exemption since 2024. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 9) Application was made on May 24, 2023 by Mr. Hauer as Trustee, along with a Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 9, 12) At that time, Petitioner applied for and received a discount for a service -related disability based on a determination of 90% disability dated November 24, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 10-11). Petitioner informed the PAO when he applied in 2024 that he would be seeking a determination of total disability by the VA. (Hauer) But he did not ask any particular questions about future application for this exemption, including any filing deadlines for application. (Hauer) After many months, Petitioner received a determination of 100% disability from the VA in October, 2025. (P. Ex. 1, p. 5; PAO Ex. 1, p. 16) Sometime in late October after receiving the disability determination, Petitioner called the PAO to inquire about applying for the exemption. He was told that he had missed the deadline (September 1, 2025) but could file a VAB petition. (Hauer) Petitioner attempted to make application on December 2, but was not permitted to file a 2025 application at that time due to the expiration of the 25 days after issuance of the Notice of Proposed Taxes (VAB filing deadline); however, the PAO did take application for 2026 and will grant the exemption for the 2026 tax year. (Ybaceta) Conclusions of Law: This appeal concerns the application of an exemption for a total and permanent disability by a veteran homeowner. Petitioner, Kristian Hauer, is the beneficial owner of residential 2025-00684 Page 2 of 4 property located at 14231 Galley Court, Naples, Florida, and homesteaded this property in the 2024 tax year. At that time, Petitioner applied for and received an exemption for a service -connected partial disability. Petitioner failed to timely apply for a total service - related disability exemption under s. 196.081, Fla. Stat., in 2025 and challenges the PAO's refusal to accept (and grant) application for this exemption. Section 196.081(1)(a), Fla. Stat., provides that "[A]ny real estate that is owned and used as a homestead by a veteran who was honorably discharged with a service -connected total and permanent disability and for whom a letter from the United States Government or United States Department of Veterans Affairs or its predecessor has been issued certifying that the veteran is totally and permanently disabled is exempt from taxation, if the veteran is a permanent resident of this state on January 1 of the tax year for which exemption is being claimed or was a permanent resident of this state on January 1 of the year the veteran died." There is no question that Petitioner has been determined by the VA as totally and permanently disabled and is therefore eligible for the exemption. The question in this appeal is whether, having failed to apply by March 1, Petitioner has waived his right to the exemption. The PAO cites to s. 196.011(1)(a), Fla. Stat., that states that "Failure to make application when required, on or before March 1 of any year shall constitute a waiver of the Exemption privilege for that year...." Subsection (9) provides an exception to this filing deadline by requiring that any such applicant, who is qualified to receive any exemption under subsection (1), "must" file an application for exemption with the property appriser on or before the 25th day following the mailing by the property appraiser of the Notice of Proposed Taxes, commonly referred to as the "TRIM Notice." This deadline for 2025 was September 12, 2025 (Ybaceta) based on the issuance of the 2025 TRIM Notice. There is no factual dispute that Petitioner failed to file by March 1 of 2025 and September 12, 2025. Petitioner argues that in the interest of "fairness" he should be allowed to receive the exemption for 2025. In support of this argument, he makes three points. First, he states that although he mentioned to a PAO employee in 2024 when applying for his homestead and partial disability exemption that he was seeking a 100% disability determination from the VA, he was not informed about the deadlines for application or the ability to apply without a VA determination. In addition, he argues that when he called in late October after receiving his VA letter, he was told he missed the deadline of September 1, 2025. (Assuming the PA's representative made this erroneous statement as to the deadline, this representation did not prevent or adversely affect Petitioner's ability to timely apply, as the deadline had already passed when this communication was had.) Finally, he argues that he was delayed for reasons beyond his control, i.e., the protracted process at the VA for a determination of disability. Although estoppel may in very limited circumstances be applied against a taxing 2025-00684 Page 3 of 4 authority where a taxpayer has reasonably relied on a (mis)representation by the authority to his or her detriment, this case does not support the application of equitable estoppel. The PAO had no legal duty to anticipate and advise Petitioner as to a future application where Petitioner failed to inquire. Nor did it misrepresent any facts upon which Petitioner relied to his detriment. As the filing deadline had long passed by the time he called in last October, that information had no bearing on his unfortunate predicament. While it is true, Petitioner was seemingly diligent in his pursuit with the VA of the 100% disability determination, the delay in obtaining this documentation was not an impediment to applying for the exemption. Section 196.081(5) states: "[A]n applicant for the exemption under this section may apply for the exemption before receiving the necessary documentation from the United States Government or the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or its predecessor. Upon receipt of the documentation, the exemption shall be granted as of the date of the original application, and the excess taxes paid shall be refunded. Any refund of excess taxes paid shall be limited to those paid during the 4-year period of limitation set forth in s. 197.182(1)(e)." As a result, Petitioner could have timely applied for the total exemption in 2025 without the VA letter of determination. Upon its receipt the PAO would have applied the exemption as of the date of the application. Although Petitioner was not informed of this by the PAO when he applied in 2024, he admitted, to his credit, that he did not inquire, but, rather, merely mentioned he was anticipating a total exemption in the future. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the credible and relevant evidence presented that the PAO's failure to take application after the September deadline for 2025 was improper. The evidence presented by the PAO as to the operative facts was credible, relevant and undisputed. Petitioner was eligible for a total exemption as of May 17, 2024 (P. Ex. 1, p. 5) However, Petitioner failed to make application by the statutory deadline which constitutes a waiver under s. 196.011(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The PAO cannot properly accept and consider an application beyond the statutory deadline. Atty Gen. Opinion 2001-83. Unfortunately, as Ms. Ybaceta points out, this Special Magistrate has no authority to grant the relief sought by Petitioner on the basis of hardship. The totality of the credible and relevant evidence presented by the parties was insufficient to show that Petitioner was entitled to the exemption. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the Petition be denied. 2025-00684 Page 4 of 4 mom DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE Rule 12D-161002 ki TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C. OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION Eff. 11/23 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), 194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2025-00690 Parcel ID 39321120009 Petitioner name HOGAN, AUSTIN R Property 510 16TH ST NE The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ representative address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 379,788.00 379,788.00 379,788.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 349,370.00 349,370.00 349,370.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 55,722.00 55,722.00 1 55,722.00 4. Taxable value,* required 293,648.00 1 293,648.00 1 293,648.00 *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 ❑Gther,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 E%con6%endatio�s. en a Ellen Chadwell 03/09/2026 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 03/11/2026 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 239-252-8399 or visit our website at https:Happ.collierclerk.com/axiaweb202 ❑ 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 2025-00690 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Austin Hogan, who owns property located at 510 16th Street NE, Naples, Florida. Petitioner appeals a denial of an exemption as a totally and permanently disabled veteran. Petitioner was not present but had indicated on his petition that he would not appear and wanted his evidence considered. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. Both were sworn. Petitioner presented a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA ")determining his status as permanently and totally disabled. This was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, without objection. Petitioner also presented ten -page document consisting of the same VA letter of Benefits, photos of communication with the PAO, and photos of his 2026 application for the exemption. The VA determined that Petitioner was totally and permanently disabled as of November 1, 2024. (P. Ex. 1) Petitioner attempted to apply for a total exemption in October, 2025, after receiving his VA letter. (Ybaceta) Because Petitioner did not seek to make application before the 25th day following the issuance of the Notice of Proposed Taxes ("TRIM"), he was not allowed to make an application for 2025. (Ybaceta). Petitioner explained to the PAO that he had not received his letter of benefits until October and therefore hadn't timely filed. (P. Ex. 1, pp. 3-5; Ybaceta) He was informed that the absolute deadline for filing was September 12, 2025. (Ybaceta) Instead, Petitioner was permitted to apply for 2026, and the 2026 application for total exemption was granted. (Ybaceta) The PAO submitted its 26-page packet as evidence, which was admitted as relevant and credible and was marked as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. In 2022, Petitioner applied for and received a $5000 service disability exemption based on a determination by the VA that Petitioner was 90% disabled. (PAO Ex, 1, p. 9-10) Petitioner made further application with the VA for a total disability. This was ultimately granted by the VA but Petitioner did not receive this letter determining a total disability until October 15, 2025. (P. Ex. 1, p. 5). The TRIM notice was mailed on August 18, 2025 and the deadline for filing a VAB petition was September 12, 2025. (PAO Ex. 1, p.11) Petitioner filed his VAB petition late on February 12, 2026, and requested that his petition be accepted for good cause. A finding of good cause was made by the VAB Attorney and issued on February 12, 2026, which permitted the late filed petition and a hearing on this appeal. 2025-00690 Page 2 of 4 Conclusions of Law: This appeal concerns the application of an exemption for a total and permanent disability by a veteran homeowner. Petitioner, Austin Hogan, is the owner of residential property at 510 16th Street NE in Naples, Florida. This property is his homestead. Petitioner failed to timely apply for a total service -related disability exemption under s. 196.081, Fla. Stat., in 2025, and challenges the PAO's refusal to accept application for and grant a total disability exemption for the 2025 tax year. Section 196.081(1)(a), Fla. Stat., provides that "[A]ny real estate that is owned and used as a homestead by a veteran who was honorably discharged with a service -connected total and permanent disability and for whom a letter from the United States Government or United States Department of Veterans Affairs or its predecessor has been issued certifying that the veteran is totally and permanently disabled is exempt from taxation, if the veteran is a permanent resident of this state on January 1 of the tax year for which exemption is being claimed or was a permanent resident of this state on January 1 of the year the veteran died." There is no question that Petitioner has been determined by the VA as totally and permanently disabled and is therefore eligible for the exemption. In fact, he has been granted a total exemption for 2026. The question in this appeal is whether, having failed to apply by March 1, Petitioner has waived his right to the exemption for 2025. The PAO cites to s. 196.011(1)(a), Fla. Stat., that states that "Failure to make application when required, on or before March 1 of any year shall constitute a waiver of the Exemption privilege for that year...." Subsection (9) provides an exception to this filing deadline by requiring that any such applicant, who is qualified to receive any exemption under subsection (1), "must" file an application for exemption with the property appraiser on or before the 25th day following the mailing by the property appraiser of the Notice of Proposed Taxes, commonly referred to as the "TRIM Notice." This deadline for 2025 was September 12, 2025 (Ybaceta) based on the issue date of the 2025 TRIM Notice. There is no factual dispute that September 12, 2025 was the deadline and that Petitioner failed to file for the exemption by that date. Petitioner argues that although he did not receive his VA letter determining a total disability until October of 2025, the effective date of his disability was November, 2024. Petitioner asserts that because he had no control over the VA processing of that determination, which was a requirement for the exemption, he should be permitted to file a late application and receive the exemption for 2025. However, as the PAO correctly points out, the entitlement to this exemption is waived if it is not filed by March 1 unless extenuating circumstances exist. Ostensibly, Petitioner is arguing that the lateness of the VA letter constitutes extenuating circumstances beyond his control thereby permitting a late filed application to be granted. 2025-00690 Page 3 of 4 The Florida legislature, however, clearly contemplated the timing of VA determinations as a possible impediment to the prompt processing and receipt of this entitlement (benefit) by Florida veterans. Section 196.081(5) states: "[A]n applicant for the exemption under this section may apply for the exemption before receiving the necessary documentation from the United States Government or the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or its predecessor. Upon receipt of the documentation, the exemption shall be granted as of the date of the original application, and the excess taxes paid shall be refunded. Any refund of excess taxes paid shall be limited to those paid during the 4- year period of limitation set forth in s. 197.182(1)(e)." The foregoing language clearly permitted Petitioner to timely apply for the total exemption in 2025 without the VA letter of determination. Upon its receipt the PAO would have applied the exemption as of the date of the application. Because the statute allowed Petitioner to prematurely file his 2025 application while waiting on the letter of benefits, the receipt of this determination after the filing deadlines cannot constitute extenuating circumstances. Petitioner, unfortunately, failed to avail himself of this statutory provision. As additional legal basis for a denial of this petition, the PAO cites to Attorney General Opinion 2001-83 which concludes that the VAB cannot consider a taxpayer's failure to receive an exemption in the absence of an application filed within the statutory timeline. This opinion does not address the situation where a taxpayer is denied the opportunity to apply, and Petitioner makes no distinct argument that the PAO was required to accept his application after September 12, 2025. As Petitioner did not and could not show extenuating circumstances justifying the granting of an exemption for 2025, the absence of an actual application is a moot point. As a final matter, this Special Magistrate does not have the authority to grant an exemption on the basis of a hardship. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the credible and relevant evidence presented that the PAO's failure to grant a service -connected total exemption for 2025 was improper. The evidence presented by the PAO as to the operative facts was credible, relevant and undisputed. Petitioner missed the March 1 deadline which constitutes a waiver under s. 196.011(1)(a), Fla. Stat., and failed to show extenuating circumstances that would permit the granting of the exemption after the statutory deadline. As no extenuating circumstances were demonstrated, this Special Magistrate need not consider the inability of Petitioner to complete and file an application for 2025. The totality of the credible and relevant evidence presented by the parties was insufficient to show extenuating circumstances otherwise entitling Petitioner to the granting of the exemption. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the Petition be denied. 2025-00690 Page 4 of 4 (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-488 Section 193.122, Florida Statutes FLORIDA R. 12/09 Page 1 of 2 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Tax Roll Year 1 2 1 0 2 5 The Value Adjustment Board of Collier County, after approval of the assessment roll below by the Department of Revenue, certifies that all hearings required by section 194.032, F.S., have been held and the Value Adjustment Board is satisfied that the Check one. ❑✓ Real Property ❑ Tangible Personal Property assessment for our county includes all property and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations of the Department of Revenue. On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached as part of the assessment roll. The roll will be delivered to the property appraiser of this county on the date of this certification. The property appraiser will adjust the roll accordingly and make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable property under the law. The following figures* are correct to the best of our knowledge: 1. Taxable value of ❑✓ real property tangible personal property assessment roll as submitted by the property appraiser to the value adjustment board $ 161,439,252,341 2. Net change in taxable value due to actions of the Board $ (3,206,633) 3. Taxable value of ❑✓ real property tangible personal property assessment roll incorporating all changes due to action of the value adjustment board $ 161,436,045,708 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Continued on page 2 03/30/26 Date Certification of the Value Adjustment Board PROCEDURES DR-488 R. 12/09 Page 2 of 2 Tax Roll Year 1 2 1 0 1 2 5 The value adjustment board has met the requirements below. Check all that apply. The board: ❑✓ 1. Followed the prehearing checklist in Chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. Took all actions reported by the VAB clerk or the legal counsel to comply with the checklist. ❑✓ 2. Verified the qualifications of special magistrates, including if special magistrates completed the Department's training. Z 3. Based the selection of special magistrates solely on proper qualifications and the property appraiser did not influence the selection of special magistrates. ❑✓ 4. Considered only petitions filed by the deadline or found to have good cause for filing late. Z 5. Noticed all meetings as required by section 286.011, F.S. Z 6. Did not consider ex parte communications unless all parties were notified and allowed to object to or address the communication. ❑✓ 7. Reviewed and considered all petitions as required, unless withdrawn or settled by the petitioner. Z 8. Ensured that all decisions contained the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. Z 9. Allowed the opportunity for public comment at the meetings where the recommended decisions of special magistrates were considered or board decisions were adopted. ❑✓ 10. Addressed all complaints of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 194, Part I, Florida Statutes, and rule Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C., that were called to the board's attention. All board members and the board's legal counsel have read this certification. The board must submit this certification to the Department of Revenue before it publishes the notice of the findings and results required by section 194.037, F.S. On behalf of the entire value adjustment board, I certify that the above statements are true and that the board has met all the requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and Department rules. After all hearings have been held, the board shall certify an assessment roll or part of an assessment roll that has been finally approved according to section 193.011, F.S. A sufficient number of copies of this certification shall be delivered to the property appraiser to attach to each copy of the assessment roll prepared by the property appraiser. Signature, chair of the value adjustment board 03/30/26 Date (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-488 Section 193.122, Florida Statutes FLORIDA R. 12/09 Page 1 of 2 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Tax Roll Year 1 2 1 0 2 5 The Value Adjustment Board of Collier County, after approval of the assessment roll below by the Department of Revenue, certifies that all hearings required by section 194.032, F.S., have been held and the Value Adjustment Board is satisfied that the Check one. ❑ Real Property ❑✓ Tangible Personal Property assessment for our county includes all property and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations of the Department of Revenue. On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached as part of the assessment roll. The roll will be delivered to the property appraiser of this county on the date of this certification. The property appraiser will adjust the roll accordingly and make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable property under the law. The following figures* are correct to the best of our knowledge: 1. Taxable value of ❑ real property ❑✓ tangible personal property assessment roll as submitted by the property appraiser to the value adjustment board $ 3,086,513,175 2. Net change in taxable value due to actions of the Board $ 0 3. Taxable value of ❑ real property ❑✓ tangible personal property assessment roll incorporating all changes due to action of the value adjustment board $ 3,086,513,175 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Continued on page 2 03/30/26 Date Certification of the Value Adjustment Board PROCEDURES DR-488 R. 12/09 Page 2 of 2 Tax Roll Year 1 2 1 0 1 2 5 The value adjustment board has met the requirements below. Check all that apply. The board: ❑✓ 1. Followed the prehearing checklist in Chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. Took all actions reported by the VAB clerk or the legal counsel to comply with the checklist. ❑✓ 2. Verified the qualifications of special magistrates, including if special magistrates completed the Department's training. Z 3. Based the selection of special magistrates solely on proper qualifications and the property appraiser did not influence the selection of special magistrates. ❑✓ 4. Considered only petitions filed by the deadline or found to have good cause for filing late. Z 5. Noticed all meetings as required by section 286.011, F.S. Z 6. Did not consider ex parte communications unless all parties were notified and allowed to object to or address the communication. ❑✓ 7. Reviewed and considered all petitions as required, unless withdrawn or settled by the petitioner. Z 8. Ensured that all decisions contained the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. Z 9. Allowed the opportunity for public comment at the meetings where the recommended decisions of special magistrates were considered or board decisions were adopted. ❑✓ 10. Addressed all complaints of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 194, Part I, Florida Statutes, and rule Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C., that were called to the board's attention. All board members and the board's legal counsel have read this certification. The board must submit this certification to the Department of Revenue before it publishes the notice of the findings and results required by section 194.037, F.S. On behalf of the entire value adjustment board, I certify that the above statements are true and that the board has met all the requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and Department rules. After all hearings have been held, the board shall certify an assessment roll or part of an assessment roll that has been finally approved according to section 193.011, F.S. A sufficient number of copies of this certification shall be delivered to the property appraiser to attach to each copy of the assessment roll prepared by the property appraiser. Signature, chair of the value adjustment board 03/30/26 Date (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 NOTICE DR-529 R. 1 ZQ9 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TAX IMPACT OF HALVE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Collier County Tax Year 2 0 2 5 Rule 120-16.002 Florida Administrator Code Members of the Board Honorable Burt Saunders Board of County Commissioners, District Nc. 3 Honorable Chris Hall Board of County Commissioners, District No. 2 Honorable Erick Carter School Board. District No. 4 Citizen Member Dan Barone Business owner within the school district Citizen Member Rebecca Earney Homestead property owner The Value Adjustment Board (VAB) meets each year to hear petitions and make decisians rela#in.q to property tax assessments, exemptions, classifications, and tax deferrals. Summary of Fear's Actions Number of Parcels Reduction in Shift in Type of Property County Taxable Value Taxes Exemptions Assessments' Both Due to Board Actions Due to Board Actions Grerted Requesied Reducv-d :�.quested '`°'ithcrawn or settled Residential 0 19 12 517 228 S (1,693,864) S (28,914) Commercial 0 0 4 216 171 S (1,512,769) S (15,886) Industrial and miscellaneous 0 1 0 34 25 0 0 Agricultural or classified use 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 S 0 High-water recharge 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 S 0 Historic commercial or nonprofit 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 S 0 Business machinery and equipment 0 0 0 51 51 0 0 Vacant lots and 0 1 6 63 47 S 0 S (7,040) acreage TOTALS 0 21 22 881 522 1 S (3,206,633) S (51,840) All values should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may d iffer_ *Include transfer of assessment difference (portability) requests_ If you have a question about these actions, contact the Chair or the Clerk of the Value Adjustment Board. Chairs name Burt Saunders, VAB Chairman Phone 239-252-8603 Clerk's name Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Phone 239-252-8399 ex= (a) PTO Bulletin 25-19 — Transmittal of New Provisional Value Adjustment Board Petition and Notice of Hearing Forms for New Required Hearings Using Electronic Communication Equipment (b) Department of Revenue Informational Bulletin, Collier VAB Response, and Proposed Rule Changes B. Value Adjustment Board 2025 Compliance Checklist for Collier County C. Additional Updates 1) Advise Board of need for Chair to sign off on SM Jonas change in company wBoard approval of action thereafter 2) VAB Counsel Informational Item 4. Public Comment 5. VAB Members or Staff Comment 6. Adoption of Special Magistrate Recommendations A. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2025 VAB (690 Filed Petitions involving 902 Parcels) (150 Recommended Decisions involving 365 Parcels) (motion needed) 1) Motion to approve Recommended Decisions: • Homestead Exemption Petitions • Portability Transfer Petitions • Not Substantially Complete Petitions • Residential and Commercial Value Petitions 7. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Real Property (DR-488 RP) (motion needed) 8. Adoption of Certification of the Value Adjustment Board — Tangible Personal Property (DR-488 TPP) (motion needed) 9. Adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board (DR-529) (motion needed) 10. Motion to permit VAB Counsel to review VAB website to ensure compliance and consistency (motion needed) Page 2 March 30, 2026 11. Set date for VAB 2026 Session Organizational Meeting: (2 dates proposed with room tentatively reserved): (motion needed) Motion for Monday, August 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Motion for Monday, August 17, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. 12. Adjourn Page 3 March 30, 2026 11. Set date for VAB 2026 Session Organizational Meeting: (2 dates proposed with room tentatively reserved): (motion needed) Motion for Monday, August 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Motion for Monday, August 17, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. 12. Adjourn Page 3 March 30, 2026