Loading...
2015 Special Magistrate Recommendations FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00098 Parcel ID 25840000847 Petitioner name SUFFIAN A SHTAYYEH REV TRUST Property 834 INLET DR The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ej Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 690,560.00 690,560.00 690,560.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 679,316.00 679,316.00 679,316.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 679,316.00 679,316.00 679,316.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] EI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on his petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider his evidence; a letter stating his displeasure of the value, in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: analyzed comparable properties in the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. IZ These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00130 Parcel ID 14002800003 Petitioner name JULIAN STOKES Property 67 8TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34102 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition J Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,999,345.00 2,999,345.00 2,353,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,536,279.00 1,536,279.00 1,536,279.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,536,279.00 1,536,279.00 1,536,279.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/01/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. Julian Stokes, MAI (appearing in the capacity as a licensed appraiser). It is noted that Mr. Stokes was also appearing on this same hearing date for a similar petition (i.e. TP-131) that also has the same owner as this subject & it is located next door/adjacent to the subject. However, the properties are different and will be heard separately, even though some of the data is similar. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1951, and it is located on a dry, interior lot within a half block of the Gulf of Mexico. It is located at 67 8th Avenue South in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 2,149 SF on a lot of 0.26 acres (74.90' X 150' = 11,235). The subject has an open (lap) pool/spa and a small/detached guest house. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,999,345. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable residual land/improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. At the hearing I accepted additional photographic evidence from the PAO. The 8" x 10" color photographs were of the street situation and beach park in the immediate proximity of the subject. The PAO notes the subject was part of a multi-folio sale in 7/2010 for $4.3M, but that sale was apparently for 2 properties COMBINED (i.e. the subject's TP-130 & also the adjacent property TP-131). The PAO notes the minimum lot size in the subject's zoning is 10,000 SF, so the subject's lot is a conforming lot. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $41,500/front foot (FF), which is inclusive of impact fees that run with the land. The PAO provides 5 `residual' land sale indicators [i.e. the 5 improved sales used by the PAO], based upon improved sales with the removal of the improved assessed portions of each respective sale. The resulting lot value of the subject is $3,108,350. The PAO provides a location map for the sales. The PAO then adds site improvements ($12,500) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($168,125) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,288,975. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 improved sales from the immediate neighborhood (4 within a 1-block radius, but all 5 within a 5- block radius). All 5 of the comparable sales are within a 1.5 block distance to the Gulf of Mexico. While Sale #1 is a much newer home (built in '09 & sold for $6.5M), the balance of the sales were built between 1926-1951 and sold for prices that range from $2.75M-$9M. Sale #2 ($2.795M) appears to be the most similar to the subject in most respects (i.e. quality, age, livable size and lot FF). It is just 1 block immediately south of the subject. The PAO conclude a Sales Comparison Approach value of$3.225M from the sales, which is significantly more than the unadjusted prices of Sale #2 ($2.795M) and Sale #5 (99 FF lot, 2,544 SF home built in '51 with an effective age of 2005 that sold for $2.75M. From the face value of the sales and their respective prices (particularly Sales #2 and #5), the PAO's conclusion appears excessive. It is very possible the problem is due to the large lot size adjustments applied. It appears the PAO adjusted $37,800/FF to Sale #2, and $40,320/FF to Sale #5. The adjustments for building size and extra features the PAO attributes to these two sales (especially Sale #2) appear highly questionable, as they could both be considered homes ripe for demolition; therefore, their extra features are basically worthless (or nominal). The PAO does barely establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, but it is mainly with the PAO's estimate of land value of$3,108,350 in his Cost Approach, which is slightly more than the PAO's full just value assessment of$2,999,345 (and even that figure looks aggressive, yet possibly within the realm of reasonableness). The Petitioner (PET) provides an appraisal prepared by Mr. Stokes, along with a letter of authorization. The PET notes his cover letter prepared for Northern Trust Bank in Toronto was an oversight left in the letter from a prior appraisal. Mr. Stoke affirmed that the appraisal in evidence was prepared for this VAB proceeding, and his value conclusion was $2.22M. His appraisal acknowledges a structure is in place, but that it is 64 years old and is `at or near' near the end of its economic life. I his reconciliation of his value, Mr. Stokes makes a minor math error. His intent was to conclude $2,362,500, then deduct $143,091 for COS, and another [extremely high amount of] $32,000 for demolition costs, resulting in a CORRECTED value conclusion of$2,187,409. He incorrectly added back impact fee credits of$35,612, but that is not proper, as those credits are already inherently included in his $2,362,500 figure, because it was derived from comparable sales that also had those fees inherently included. Therefore, using Mr. Stoke's math and making the correction, his resulting value conclusion is corrected to be $2,187,409. Mr. Stokes grids out 5 sales in the appraisal form, and then prepares a 2nd grid with the same 5 sales, yet in the 2nd grid he applies a limited number of adjustments. Mr. Stokes appraises the property as vacant land, which assumes the subject's improvements are at the end of its useful life. The PET Sale #1 is also the PAO's Sale #2, which I do consider to be a very significant sale, as mentioned earlier. That is the only common sale both the PAO & PET share. The PET's main argument at this hearing is that the public park adjacent to the subject creates a nuisance when the PET adjusts 20% to sales not impacted by the park. The PET thinks there is a location adjustment of 35% applicable to the Naples Pier (applicable to his Sale #3). The PET notes a time adjustment of"12% per annum between 2013 and 2014". The PET then applies that adjustment inconsistently to the sales. He does make a time adjustment of 20% for its 3/26/2013 sale date, and a -1% time adjustment to Sale #5 which (in the actual adjustment grid) he states closed 2/2/2015 (yet in his first grid he correctly states it closed 4/30/2015). His time adjustment to Sale #2 takes the adjustment all the way up to the assessment date of 1/1/2015; yet, he does not carry that same time adjustment of 1%/month to his sales #1, #3, and #4 (all which closed during 2014). The PAO questions the magnitude of the PET's adjustment for the pier and the park adjacent to the subject. I have also reviewed the pictures of the park and street scene, as provided by the PAO as evidence I entertained at the hearing. Mr. Stokes confirmed that he did inspect the interior & exterior of the subject property, as confirmed by his signed certification. RULING: The subject and comparable properties are high dollar properties with high land values. Rather than getting into criticizing or supporting some of the adjustments discussed for views and/or arguing about whether the subject is (or is not) at the end of its useful life, it is better to focus on specific comps presented for their similar traits, where possible. From the data presented, I give weight to PAO's Sale #2 (PET's Sale #1) that had an unadjusted price of$2.795M, PAO Sale #5 with an unadjusted price of $2.75M, and PET's Sale #2 NEXT DOOR TO THE SUBJECT with a time-adjusted price indication of$2.76M (based upon 1%/month appreciation applied). While Mr. Redding (with the PAO) indicates he could support 1.5%/month appreciation by his own research, the PAO fails to make any time adjustments to any of his 5 comparables at all. Interestingly enough, PET's Sale #2 is next door to the subject AND also a corner on busier Gulf Shore Boulevard. It was a tear-down situation with a new home now built upon the site and it does have a driveway cut facing 8th Avenue South, as does the subject. It also has a driveway cut to Gulf Shore Boulevard. It is significant to this hearing, because it ALSO faces the same type of park traffic as does the subject. Sales #2 and #5 of the PAO are both `below average' construction quality like the subject. They have original construction dates of 1938 and 1951 respectively, which is comparable to the subject's 1951 construction. It has effective age designations of 1938 and 2005, respectively. It can likely be argued both ways that these comps are (or are not) tear downs at the time of sale,just like the subject. Often that is a matter of preference on the part of the buyer, who may elect to wait a few years (or more) before demolition. The same can be said of the subject. As stated, I give weight to the UN- adjusted PAO indicated prices of PAO Sale #2/PET Sale #1 ($2.795M with 66.6 FF), UN-adjusted PAO Sale #5 ($2.75M with 99.9 FF), and time-adjusted PET Sale #2 next door to the subject with highly similar traffic/park issue ($2.76M with 95 FF). The average of these 3 indicators is $2,768,333, and after a 15% COS consideration, I recommend lowering the subject's assessment to $2,353,000 (rounded). My recommendation of a reduction does not signify agreement with the PET's analysis or (inconsistent) adjustments he applies. It does recognize that the PAO provides 3 highly unreliable indicators (PAO's sales #1, #3, and #4) that were adjusted and resulted in extremely high adjustments all in excess of$3.3M. Rather than get lost in the mathematics of complicated adjustments that are difficult to support, it is sometimes best to sit back and observe the gross dollars paid for basically similar situations (within reason) and see what buyers and sellers agreed upon, which is clears the way for the answer to surface. It does appear that buyers and sellers in this IMMEDIATE area were willing to pay a price somewhere near $2.75-$2.795M for similar sets of circumstances, as of the assessment date. Given that appears to be the case and given the PAO's 15% COS factor in his DR-493, I recommend a reduction in the subject's assessment to $2,353,000 (rounded). The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by property appraiser at the hearing [Section 194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$2,353,000. [Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00131 Parcel ID 14002760004 Petitioner name JULIAN STOKES Property 47 8TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition G71 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 2,937,121.00 2,937,121.00 2,353,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,463,700.00 1,463,700.00 1,463,700.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,463,700.00 1,463,700.00 1,463,700.00 *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) EZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/05/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties , Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. Julian Stokes, MAI (appearing in the capacity as a licensed appraiser). It is noted that Mr. Stokes was also appearing on this same hearing date for a similar petition (i.e. TP-130) that also has the same owner as this subject & it is located next door/adjacent to the subject. However, the properties are different and will be heard separately, even though most of the data is similar. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1951, and it is located on a dry, interior lot within a half block of the Gulf of Mexico. It is located at 47 8th Avenue South in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 1,491 SF situated on a lot of 0.26 acres (75' X 150' = 11,250), per the PAO's records. The subject does have a two-car detached garage. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,937,121. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable residual land/improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. At the hearing I accepted additional photographic evidence from the PAO. The 8" x 10" color photographs were of the street situation and beach park in the immediate proximity of the subject. The PAO notes the subject was part of a multi-folio sale in 7/2010 for $4.3M, but that sale was apparently for 2 properties COMBINED (i.e. the subject's TP-131 & also the adjacent property TP-130). The PAO notes the minimum lot size in the subject's zoning is 10,000 SF, so the subject's lot is a conforming lot. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $41,500/front foot (FF), which is inclusive of impact fees that run with the land. The PAO provides 5 `residual' land sale indicators [i.e. the 5 improved sales used by the PAO], based upon improved sales with the removal of the improved assessed portions of each respective sale. The resulting lot value of the subject is $3,112,500. The PAO provides a location map for the sales. The PAO then adds site improvements ($17,500) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($102,121) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,232,121. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 improved sales from the immediate neighborhood (4 within a 1-block radius, but all 5 within a 5- block radius). All 5 of the comparable sales are within a 1.5 block distance to the Gulf of Mexico. While Sale #1 is a much newer home (built in '09 & sold for $6.5M), the balance of the sales were built between 1926-1951 and sold for prices that range from $2.75M-$9M. Sale #2 ($2.795M) appears to be the most similar to the subject in most respects (i.e. quality, age, livable size and lot FF). It is just 1 block immediately south of the subject. The PAO conclude a Sales Comparison Approach value of$3.205M from the sales, which is significantly more than the unadjusted prices of Sale #2 ($2.795M) and Sale #5 (99 FF lot, 2,544 SF home built in '51 with an effective age of 2005 that sold for $2.75M). From the face value of the sales and their respective prices (particularly Sales #2 and #5), the PAO's conclusion appears large (yet relatively close to the PAO's land value/FF in the Cost Approach). It is very possible the problem is due to the large lot size adjustments applied. It appears the PAO adjusted $37,800/FF to Sale #2, and $40,636/FF to Sale #5. The adjustments for building size and extra features the PAO attributes to these two sales (especially Sale #2) appear highly questionable, as they could both be considered homes ripe for demolition; therefore, their extra features are basically worthless (or nominal). The PAO does barely establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, but it is mainly with the PAO's estimate of land value of$3,112,500 in his Cost Approach, which is slightly more than the PAO's full just value assessment of$2,937,121 (and even that figure looks aggressive, yet possibly within the realm of reasonableness). The Petitioner (PET) provides an appraisal prepared by Mr. Stokes, along with a letter of authorization. The PET notes his cover letter prepared for a former client in Toronto was an oversight left in the letter from a prior appraisal. Mr. Stoke affirmed that the appraisal in evidence was prepared for this VAB proceeding, and his value conclusion was $2.22M. His appraisal acknowledges a structure is in place, but that it is 64 years old and is `at or near' near the end of its economic life. In his reconciliation of his value, Mr. Stokes makes a minor math error. His intent was to conclude $2,362,500, then deduct $143,091 for COS, and another [extremely high amount of] $32,000 for demolition costs, resulting in a CORRECTED value conclusion of$2,187,409. He incorrectly added back impact fee credits of$34,767, but that is not proper, as those credits are already inherently included in his $2,362,500 figure, because it was derived from comparable sales that also had those fees inherently included. Therefore, using Mr. Stoke's math and making the correction, his resulting value conclusion is corrected to be $2,187,409. Another minor technical issue is that Mr. Stokes' retrospective valuation date should have been 1/1/2015, not 12/31/2014. Mr. Stokes grids out 5 sales in the appraisal form, and then prepares a 2nd grid with the same 5 sales, yet in the 2nd grid he applies a limited number of adjustments. Mr. Stokes appraises the property as vacant land, which assumes the subject's improvements are at the end of its useful life. The PET Sale #1 is also the PAO's Sale #2, which I do consider to be a very significant sale, as mentioned earlier. That is the only common sale both the PAO & PET share. The PET's main argument at this hearing is that the public park adjacent to the subject creates a nuisance when the PET adjusts 20% to sales not impacted by the park. The PET thinks there is a location adjustment of 35% applicable to the Naples Pier (applicable to his Sale #3). The PET notes a time adjustment of"12% per annum between 2013 and 2014". The PET then applies that adjustment inconsistently to the sales. He does make a time adjustment of 20% to Sale #2 for its 3/26/2013 sale date, and a -1% time adjustment to Sale #5 which (in the actual adjustment grid) he states closed 2/2/2015 (yet in his first grid he correctly states it closed 4/30/2015). [Possibly he was intending to adjust to the contract date, but does not do the same for his Sale #2]. His time adjustment to Sale #2 takes the adjustment all the way up to the assessment date of 1/1/2015; yet, he does not carry that same time adjustment of 1%/month to his sales #1, #3, and #4 (all which closed during 2014). The PAO questions the magnitude of the PET's adjustment for the pier and the park adjacent to the subject. I have also reviewed the pictures of the park and street scene, as provided by the PAO as evidence I entertained at the hearing. Mr. Stokes confirmed that he did inspect the interior & exterior of the subject property, as confirmed by his signed certification. RULING: The subject and comparable properties are high dollar properties with high land values. Rather than getting into criticizing or supporting some of the adjustments discussed for views and/or arguing about whether the subject is (or is not) at the end of its useful life, it is better to focus on specific comps presented for their similar traits, where possible. From the data presented, I give weight to PAO's Sale #2 (which is also PET's Sale #1) that had an unadjusted price of$2.795M, PAO Sale #5 with an unadjusted price of$2.75M, and PET's Sale #2 2 DOORS WEST OF THE SUBJECT with a time-adjusted price indication of$2.76M (based upon 1%/month appreciation applied). While Mr. Redding (with the PAO) indicates he could support 1.5%/month appreciation by his own research, the PAO fails to make any time adjustments to any of his 5 comparables at all. Interestingly enough, PET's Sale #2 is two doors west of the subject AND also a corner on busier Gulf Shore Boulevard. It was a tear-down situation with a new home now built upon the site and it does have a driveway cut facing 8th Avenue South, as does the subject. It also has a driveway cut to Gulf Shore Boulevard. It is significant to this hearing, because it ALSO faces the same type of park traffic as does the subject. Sales #2 and #5 of the PAO are both `below average' construction quality like the subject. They have original construction dates of 1938 and 1951 respectively, which is comparable to the subject's 1951 construction. It has effective age designations of 1938 and 2005, respectively. It can likely be argued both ways that these comps are (or are not) tear downs at the time of sale,just like the subject. Often that is a matter of preference on the part of the buyer, who may elect to wait a few years (or more) before demolition. The same can be said of the subject. As stated, I give weight to the UN- adjusted PAO indicated prices of PAO Sale #2/PET Sale #1 ($2.795M with 66.6 FF), UN-adjusted PAO Sale #5 ($2.75M with 99.9 FF), and time-adjusted PET Sale #2 two doors west of the subject with highly similar traffic/park issue ($2.76M with 95 FF). The average of these 3 indicators is $2,768,333, and after a 15% COS consideration, I recommend lowering the subject's assessment to $2,353,000 (rounded). My recommendation of a reduction does not signify agreement with the PET's analysis or (inconsistent) adjustments he applies. It does recognize that the PAO provides 3 highly unreliable indicators (PAO's sales #1, #3, and #4) that were adjusted and resulted in extremely high adjustments all in excess of$3.3M. Rather than get lost in the mathematics of complicated adjustments that are difficult to support, it is sometimes best to sit back and observe the gross dollars paid for basically similar situations (within reason) and see what buyers and sellers agreed upon, which clears the way for the answer to surface. It does appear that buyers and sellers in this IMMEDIATE area were willing to pay a price somewhere near $2.75-$2.795M for similar sets of circumstances, as of the assessment date. Given that appears to be the case and given the PAO's 15% COS factor in his DR-493, I recommend a reduction in the subject's assessment to $2,353,000 (rounded). The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by property appraiser at the hearing [Section 194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$2,353,000. [Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00142 Parcel ID 17860760007 Petitioner name QUANTMEYER, GLENN J JAMIE R Property 660 3RD STN The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,751,983.00 1,638,059.00 1,638,059.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,751,983.00 1,638,059.00 1,638,059.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,701,983.00 1,588,059.00 1,588,059.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/28/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. Derek Rooney, Esq. of Gray Robinson attorneys out of Ft. Myers. A letter of authorization is in the record for Mr. Rooney's appearance. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1960, and it is located on a dry, corner lot (at Broad Avenue North) of 0.32 acres within the Ridgeview Lakes subdivision. It is located at 660 3rd Street North in Naples, and within very close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The subject has an adjusted building size of 1,771 SF. The subject has a screen-enclosed rear patio. The PET was originally contesting the PAO's just value of$1,751,983, but the PAO had re-TRIMMED the subject to a slightly lower value of$1,638,059 prior to this hearing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/patio photographs, comparable sales location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The PAO notes the subject recently sold for $1,275,000 on 3/14/2014. The contract for sale and the resulting deed for this recent sale of the subject has been provided in the PET's evidence. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $21,000/front foot (FF) X a factor of 1.02 for a lot value of$1,876,392, which is inclusive of impact fees that run with the land. The PAO provides 1 `residual' land sale indicator (from Improved Sale #4) and 2 vacant lot sales (located 5 blocks south of the subject). The `residual' indicator is based upon the recorded price, less the removal of the improved assessed portion of that sale. The PAO adds $7,500 in site improvements, as well as the (highly) depreciated value of the improvements ($54,295). The resulting total Cost Approach estimate is $1,938,187. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 improved sales from the immediate neighborhood (all within a 3-block radius of the subject). All 5 comps are located on dry lots, and all were originally built between 1951-1967. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$1,905,000, which happens to be only slightly more than the PAO's land value estimate (in the Cost Approach) of$1,876,392. Essentially, the subject's value is `in the land' and most buyers would consider it a `tear down' in the relatively near future (within a few years possibly). Granted, the existing structure could be used on an interim basis though, if desired. It is noted that Sales #1, 2, 3 & 4 are all located on 7th Avenue North, which is a busier east/west traffic route connecting Tamiami Trail with the beach access several blocks west of the subject. Sale #4's side yard is technically on 7th Avenue North, while the front of that house actually faces Bougainvella Raod (i.e. less traffic). Sale #5 also faces a low traffic street (5th Avenue North). Sales #4 and #5 are the two highest sales ($2,075,000 and $1,850,000, respectively), while the subject is located a block south of 7th Avenue North with, less traffic flow in front of it (more similar to Sales #4 and #5). For the benefit of the PET, Mr. Stephens also goes into explanations of his other data package relating to the very recent DOR audit of the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office assessments throughout the county. Mr. Stephens explains how the DOR audit indicates the PAO is well within proper tolerances of assessments in the vast majority of cases verified by the audit. The PAO notes that resale activity of the PAO sale #2 tends to indicate very strong appreciation of approximately 5% per month for these two transactions. The PET notes that appreciation of at least 3%/month has been quite common in the subject's area; thus, the future value (FV) of the subject's $1.275M price appreciated at least 3%/month 11 months from its contract date to the assessment date equates to a FV of$1,764,898, which highly supportive of the PAO's original TRIM of the subject, as well as the re- TRIM of the subject of$1,638,059. From some testimony regarding the death of one of the owners and also taking the property off MLS for a period of time could indicate the subject's $1.275M price was slightly distorted (lower) anyway, and not fully reflective of the proper market value at the time it went to contract; thus, the FV of that lower number appreciated probably does not warrant a normal COS adjustment often afforded to fully `qualified' sales that exist in the market. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at the hearing by his evidence and testimony, yet I do have some issues with the PAO's magnitude of adjustments relating to the lot sizes applied to the PAO's sales #1>3. However, those are the lots that do have direct frontage on busier 7th Avenue North, which can help to explain that adjustment to some extent. The PAO provides FF indicators for all lots, but not SF indicators. The Petitioner (PET) provides information about the recent sale of the subject for $1,275,000 on 3/14/2014. The contract for sale (executed 2/3/2014), closing statement, and the resulting deed for this recent sale has been provided in the PET's evidence. There was no commission involved in the sale, as apparently it was a FISBO. The PET also provides the subject's building card information, as supplied to the PET by the PAO. There was no other written evidence provided by the PET to this hearing. As noted by Mr. Wood and as it related to the appeal of the Mar-A-Lago circuit court case in Palm Beach County, a sales price is fact, and Market Value is an opinion of appraisal, so the mere fact that the subject sold for $1.275M is not necessarily value at all. The PET started his argument by wanting to contest the subject's `land portion' of the PAO's administrative breakdown. I corrected the PET to advise him the VAB process is to establish the `entire' PAO assessment, not just the land portion or the building portion. I further noted that in this particular case, a large portion (if not all) of the total value of the subject to the market may well be in the land only, regardless of any administrative allocation by the PAO. The PET states on the record that the building "does have value to his client". This is perhaps not unusual for a property of this nature, at least on an `interim use' basis, as even older homes can be habitable for years until such time as a given buyer can get new plans drawn and approved for the redevelopment of the site. The PET discusses prior contracts for the subject, but then one of the owners died, which delayed the closing, while the property continued to appreciate. The PET notes the subject was previously in MLS until 6/2013, and it expired for $1.1M. RULING: The PET only provided details related to the subject's March 2014 sale, and it can be argued that a variety of circumstances happened that likely resulted in the contract price being slightly lower than it should have been. Regardless, significant market appreciation per month also took place in this neighborhood, and it is the job of the PAO to assess all properties as of a specific date (1/1/2015 in this case), and not rely on a possibly lower (non-qualified) price negotiated 11 months prior under different market conditions. Because the PET does not provide any `market' evidence whatsoever to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment, it is recommended the PAO's "revised TRIM" assessment of$1,638,059 should be upheld. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. • These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00152 Parcel ID 57656400007 Petitioner name WINOWICH, STEPHEN, NATASA SOKOLOb Property 1107 LAMPLIGHTER CT The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 601,441.00 601,441.00 601,441.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 562,133.00 562,133.00 562,133.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 562,133.00 562,133.00 562,133.00 *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 Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. I Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by the owners (Ms. Natasa Sokolovich and her father, Mr. Stephen Winowich). All parties were sworn in at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1978, and it is situated upon an interior corner/canal navigable lot on Marco Island. It is located at 1107 Lamplighter Court. The subject is a 4-bed/2.5 bath home with a dome- screened pool, 2-car garage, and dockage. The adjusted building size is 2,825 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$601,441. The subject previously was purchased by the Petitioner on October 31, 2011 for $465,000. That was an REO sale from the Bank of America. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The subject already has SOH protection from the prior/ existing homestead exemption. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $5,000/front foot (FF) X a factor of 90%, or $4,500. Impact fees of$17,310 are added, as they run with the land. The PAO provides 8 land sales, which do appear highly supportive of the PAO's $4,500/FF conclusion. The PAO then adds site improvements $20,000 for driveways, landscaping, etc.) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($208,358) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$727,920. The PAO applies 30% depreciation to the main home improvements, pool, and pool deck, which are all 37 years old. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 improved sales that all closed during 2014 from the immediate neighborhood. Sale #4 is a much newer home (built in 2009) and sold for the highest price of$875,000; thus, it is not worthy of further consideration by me even though it is very similar in adjusted building area. Sale #5 was built in '86, but apparently remodeled in 2005. Based upon its photograph, it also has a significantly superior street appeal (apparently now with raised ceiling heights) and it also does not warrant further consideration by me. I give primary attention to PAO's sales #1, #2, and #3, as they have very similar street appeal and are most similar in age/quality. Among those 3 sales, #3 (which sold for $628,800 unadjusted) is the closest in lot FF (98.04) and adjusted size (2,460 SF) and it is only 3 years newer than the subject. It is also situated on an inside corner location that is extremely similar to the subject's orientation. The PAO's fully adjusted sales price indication for Sale #3 is $694,526, which is very close to the PAO's overall conclusion to this approach of$692,000. The fully adjusted sales price indicators for PAO sales #1 and #2 are $666,721, and $646,694, respectively. They at least have similar street appeal as the subject. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided a prior appraisal of the subject that was dated 9/1/2011. It was the appraisal that was used for the acquisition of the subject from Bank of America (an REO sale to the PET). It had a final appraised value of$472,000, yet the subject apparently closed for a price of$465,000. The PET also provided some market statistics from Realtor.com as of 10/14/2015, which is 10.5 months after the subject's assessment date of 1/1/2015. The PET includes 5 specific sales for consideration, yet all closed well AFTER the 1/1/2015 assessment date. Thus, the PET fails to present any timely evidence for consideration leading up to the assessment date. RULING: The PET fails to provide timely evidence for consideration leading up to the 1/1/2015 assessment date. The PAO does provide timely Cost Approach and especially Sales Comparison Approach information that is supportive of the assessment. The PET also questions equitable assessments, yet it is noted that the Collier DR-493 indicates a 15% COS for all land use codes. The PAO also provides a large packet of evidence relating to their mass appraisal process and subsequent DOR audit that better explains the overall process and findings of that audit. It is also noted that I gave considerable weight to PAO's improved sale #3, which has a 2015 assessment that is 85.2% of its recent 2014 sales price. Overall, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00160 Parcel ID 20760400001 Petitioner name HARDING AND CARBONE, INC Property 4377 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 19,300,666.00 19,300,666.00 19,300,666.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,174,282.00 16,174,282.00 16,174,282.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,174,282.00 16,174,282.00 16,174,282.00 *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 Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. ILO Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/20/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Bruce Stephens, Jeep Quinby, and Jenny Blaige. The PET was represented by Mr. Trey Watson (with Harding &Carbone, Inc.), who indicates he is not an attorney, real estate broker or an appraiser in the State of Florida. PAO TESTIMONY: The PAO discusses the discount relating to the FL Department of Revenue Guidelines for the County's tax rolls. The PAO does include a DR-493 form for 2015 for Collier County, which indicates a 15% adjustment for all use codes. Mr. Stephens indicates this informational package explaining their DOR-mandated process and audit will be included with all 2015 petitions as part of the PAO's evidence. The Petitioner had no questions regarding this information after it was explained by Mr. Stephens. The subject property is a multi-tenant shopping center (similar to a `power center') originally built in 1973, with 226,462 SF of building area situated upon a site of 21.6 acres. The PAO uses all 3 traditional approaches to value. In addition, the PAO includes a copy of business cards for the PAO's staff, an aerial photograph, building sketch, building card information, rent roll (previously supplied by the owner), various newspaper articles, capitalization rate survey information, impact fee calculations, and Costar/Loopnet information. The subject has an L-shaped configuration with direct frontage along Tamiami Trail North. In the PAO's Cost Approach, the PAO only presents a roster of 26 land sales, as well as one land listing. From the land data (all situated along Tamiami Trail), the PAO concludes a land value of$25/square foot X the subject's land area of 940,762, then adds impact fees of$3.493M for a total value of$27M (rounded). Impact fees `run with the land', even if the structure is demolished; thus, the impact fees remain significant. The AV = 71.5% of the land + impact fee value in support of the assessment, even without any positive value contribution associated with the vertical improvements. In the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a roster of 19 improved sales (1 from Sarasota County, 7 from Lee County & 11 from Collier County). The subject's assessment is $85.22/SF of building area, while the PAO concludes $115/SF (i.e. $26,043,130) from the roster of sales. The PAO's conclusion via this approach does not at all appear unreasonable from the data presented. In the PAO's Income Approach, the PAO applies an anchor rental (gross) rate of$9/SF to 189,230 SF of the center, and $28/SF to 37,232 SF of local space. As I explained to both parties at the hearing, the center's design could have even considered 3 rental tiers to include a `junior anchor' space, yet both elected to use just anchor and local size categories. The PAO then applies a 7% vacancy rate & 35% expenses, and then applies a loaded OAR of 8.5% to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of$19.525M via this approach (just slightly less than the PAO's assessment). Based upon the PAO's evidence & testimony, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness, especially with the land value support. PET TESTIMONY: The Petitioner (PET) provides improved sales, an Income Approach, statement of agency, tax roll information, aerial photograph, building sketch, site plan, rent roll, 2014 operating information, and rent comparables in his evidence. The PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET presents 5 improved sales, but per the PET's own statement, the sales he presents are supportive of the PAO's assessment of the subject. In the PETs Income Approach, the PET applies a local base rent of$18/SF to 66,540 SF, then an anchor base rate of$8.00/SF to $160,580 SF of space. He then applies a 20% vacancy rate (even though the actual occupancy is 95.5%). He also includes pass-thru (`other') income of 15% of the EGI for CAM reimbursement revenue, which equates to $1.31 of the total NRA. He deducts $570,943 of expenses to derive NOI of$1,712,828, when applies a loaded OAR of 9.58% (8.50%+1.08%) for a value indicator of$1.79M (rounded). It would appear the projection of a high vacancy rate of 20% (into perpetuity) and the use of a fairly high loaded OAR of 9.58% both penalize the property unjustly. The PET does not provide any OAR support, while the PAO's evidence suggests it should be far less. The PAO uses a loaded OAR of 8.5%, which appears to be more justifiable than the PET's much higher OAR. RULING: The PET fails to adequately consider highest & best use (H&BU) by failing to consider the underlying land value. The land value (plus any impact fees inherent in the existing building) is the basic building block of value that enables the H&BU to be determined. The PET's Income Approach value of$17.9M is more than $9M less than a well-supported land value estimate by the PAO. Furthermore, the PET is on the record stating that his own Comparable Sales Approach is supportive of the PAO's assessment. Therefore, the PAO's assessment is upheld and supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00171 Parcel ID 13035920003 Petitioner name MURPHY, KEVIN, LINDA PUCCIO Property 647 BINNACLEDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 [' other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,919,387.00 1,919,387.00 1,919,387.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,919,387.00 1,919,387.00 1,919,387.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,869,387.00 1,869,387.00 1,869,387.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner appeared for the hearing, however provided no evidence and failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: analysis of comparable data in the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00178 Parcel ID 14029560009 Petitioner name TOBER TR, NEIL S, NEIL S TOBER REV TId Property 409 1ST AVE N The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,844,742.00 2,844,742.00 2,844,742.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,830,890.00 1,830,890.00 1,830,890.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,780,890.00 1,780,890.00 1,780,890.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties , Findings of Fact: Petitioner appeared for the hearing however failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. Petitioner stated that he believed the market value was correct however the cost of the improvements should be less. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable sales within the area as well as cost data. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00205 Parcel ID 04432000069 Petitioner name JULIE ZAHNISER Property 868 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 804,100.00 804,100.00 804,100.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 677,510.00 677,510.00 677,510.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 627,510.00 627,510.00 627,510.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. While the Petitioner DID submit evidence, it will not be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/26/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/26/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. - / Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00206 Parcel ID 04432000085 Petitioner name JULIE ZAHNISER Property 868 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 730,575.00 730,575.00 730,575.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 727,997.00 727,997.00 727,997.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 727,997.00 727,997.00 727,997.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. While the Petitioner DID submit evidence, it will not be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/26/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/26/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. • These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00207 Parcel ID 04432000108 Petitioner name JULIE ZAHNISER Property 868 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 790,500.00 790,500.00 790,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 787,710.00 787,710.00 787,710.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 787,710.00 787,710.00 787,710.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. While the Petitioner DID submit evidence, it will not be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ▪ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/26/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/26/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 \Id DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. IZ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00210 Parcel ID 57858200005 Petitioner name LOOT, SERENE T Property 536 SEAGRAPEDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record [' taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1711 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 713,900.00 642,510.00 642,510.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 450,943.00 450,943.00 450,943.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 450,943.00 450,943.00 450,943.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on her petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider her evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: analysis of comparable sales data in area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment FLORIDA Ilan 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00211 Parcel ID 54750600007 Petitioner name TAXCUTSI Property 105 BONAIRE LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34134 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,643,617.00 5,643,617.00 5,643,617.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,643,617.00 5,643,617.00 5,643,617.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,643,617.00 5,643,617.00 5,643,617.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/30/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not state good cause. Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: competing residential sales data in the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00228 Parcel ID 20760160008 Petitioner name MARCUS CAPOUANO Property 4075 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 13,326,913.00 13,326,913.00 13,326,913.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,177,267.00 12,177,267.00 12,177,267.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,177,267.00 12,177,267.00 12,177,267.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/22/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Nicholas Mau, CCIM and Ms. Katelyln Andrews, both with Ryan, LLC. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as the 120-room Marriott Residence Inn built in 1999. It is located at 4075 Tamiami Trail North in Naples. The subject has a building size of 4,464 SF situated upon a site of 65,322 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photo, building sketch, and building card information. The PAO used all three traditional approaches to value. The contested just value is $13,326,913 (i.e. $111,058/room). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$9,851,000 (i.e. $82,092/room). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF + impact fees of $591,210, for a total of$6,135,610. The land estimate was based upon 26 land sale indicators (most were `residual' indicators; whereby, the land value is obtained via abstraction). The PAO also considered one active listing at $45.28/SF located within 8 blocks of the subject. It is noted that 4 of the PAO's land sales closed after the assessment date, but are considered for trending purposes. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of Tamiami Trail North land value indicators. Based upon the data presented, it appears the PAO's land value & impact fees are well supported. The PAO provides a location map for the sales, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO also provides Marshall Valuation cost figures for the depreciated value of the improvement estimate of$10.394M. The resulting Cost Approach estimate is $16.53M (rounded). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 9 improved hotel sales from various locations [3 are in Lee County]. There are 3 REO sales that reflect the lower end of the range, with $/room indicators of$50K, $72.5K, and $74,423. However, there is one sale (a Red Roof motel not a hotel) at $68,986/room in an inferior location. The rest of the non-REO sales range from $94,151-$440K/room, while the subject is assessed at $111,058/room. The PAO does not provide building size and land size information relating to any of his sales, nor does he provide Costar sheets relating to those sales. The two sales at the high end of the range ($376,878/room & $440,000/room) are on the beach, and not comparable to the subject. Among the sales provided, the Courtyard Inn (12/2014 sale) in Lee County at $134,375/room, and the Marriott Courtyard Inn (1/2015 sale) for $120,588 appear to be worthy of the greatest weight as being the most similar. They also have similar room counts at 128 and 102 rooms, respectively (compared to the subject's 120 rooms). In most cases when dealing with lodging properties, care has to be taken when analyzing sales for comparability because of location and market segment differences, yet these two transactions do seem to be reasonably similar and worthy of consideration. In the Income Approach, the PAO was not provided historical operating information when requested from the owner. Therefore, the PAO relies on his own estimates and uses an ADR (average daily room rate) of$135, vacancy at 30%, and expenses of 60%, resulting in NOI of$1,655,540. Then a loaded OAR of 9.5% is applied, and then TPP of $1,042,296 is deducted for a value indicator via the Income Approach of$16.385M (rounded). The PAO apparently did not have the benefit of the subject's actual operating information, as it is not provided in the PAO's evidence. The PAO also lacks any other hotel lodging data to support his estimates of ADR, vacancy, and expenses. While the PAO's inputs do not appear to be unreasonable on their face value, the analysis of lodging properties can be quite complicated, as there are often seasonal fluctuations, different market segments, amenities, etc. Minor changes in the ADR and occupancy can result in dramatic value fluctuations. The PAO does include various cap rate and rental data for SW Florida, yet that data is more mainstream commercial real estate, & not specifically geared toward lodging properties. Some of the PAO's general real estate data does adequately prove the general real estate data from Collier County outperforms other SW Florida Counties. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing reasonable conclusions via three approaches to value. The Petitioner (PET) provides a 1-page summary of the property/appeal, the PAO's tax roll summary from the PAO's web site, 2 aerial photos, 2 street level photographs of the subject, location map, assessment comparables, improved Sales Comparison Approach (with Costar sheets), the Collier County DR-493 for 2015, an Income Approach, and a variety of market information that includes a STAR report from STR (Smith Travel Research). In the PET's "Comparable Assessment Analysis", the PET provides a chart that compares the subject's assessment to 4 other properties. Two of those properties are motels (Ramada Naples and Courtyard Naples). Hawthorn Suites is an interstate property; whereas, the subject's location is not. The PET's chart fails to identify land area, year built, and building size, so it becomes far more difficult to make any sound conclusions from the chart provided. The PAO does note that the `Staybridge Suites Naples' property is fairly similar, but it is smaller than the subject. Its assessment is $106,444/room, as compared to the subject's $111,058/room. In that sense, it implies the subject's assessment is reasonable, but it is often a difficult burden to prove a given lodging property's assessment is unreasonable by comparing the assessments of other lodging properties. There must be a high degree of comparability, and it appears that at least 3 of the PET's assessment comps lack sufficient comparability (or enough information to determine comparability). The subject has interior corridors, while some of the PET's assessment comparables do not. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PET presents a grid of 9 sales (2 from Collier County that closed in '13 & '14, six from Lee County (5 closed in 2014 & 1 in 2013), and one sale from Sarasota that closed in 2013. While the room count and year built is provided, the land area and building sizes (and average room sizes) are not. The PET indicates the sales used are not portfolio sales, yet the Northbrook Plaza (Hampton Inn) sale in Naples is an REO/auction sale for $74,423/room at I-75 and Immokalee Road. The property at 12600 University Drive (Hilton Garden Inn) was also an REO in Ft. Myers @ $72,500/room. The PET's 9 sales have $/room indicators that range from $39,352-$89,109. The Sarasota sale for $89,109/room was actually condominium land, with each of the 101 units being a condo interest, as well. This is an inferior situation to the subject, which has all 120 units under fee simple (and sole) ownership. Given 6 of the 9 sales are from (inferior) Lee County, the average price per room indicator calculated by the PET is reduced. The PET makes no adjustments whatsoever (i.e. for time, location, design, age, etc.) to the sales, yet does pick the high end of the $/ room indicators (i.e. $90K/room, rounded upward) and applies that to the subject's 120 rooms for a value of$10.8M. Then the PET does make a 15% COS deduction from the Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, yet fails to make a TPP deduction [or a business value deduction, if warranted]. The PET's final Sales Comparison Approach just value estimate is $9,180,000, or $76,500/room. As was the case when comparing assessments, the same can be said when comparing improved lodging sales data. It is often a difficult burden to prove a given sales price per room is reasonable for a given subject. Investigations and adjustments are warranted, yet the PET does not make any adjustments (other than to give weight to the highest sale the PET chooses to present from the market). As is often the case with improved hotel sales, I do not give the PET's Sales Comparison Approach very much weight at all in the determination of the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. Most of the sales are far too dissimilar, especially with respect to location and the underlying land value characteristics. \ In the Income Approach, the PAO presents a pro-forma analysis, based heavily on a STAR report from Smith Travel Research based upon data pertaining to the assessment date. As the parties to the hearing know, STR has rules on the selection of the competitive data set from which the information is derived in order to protect the proprietary operations of certain owners/chains within a given market area. Furthermore, not all owners participate with STR, so even though data from some properties would be highly desirable, it is not always possible if they are not participants. STR is highly regarded within the lodging industry, but the usefulness of their data and reports is limited by the ability to get properties in the data set that are in fact highly comparable. This is particularly true with market segment and also with respect to building size (i.e. somewhat close in the number of units) and general location. Different physical and location characteristics can result in substantial differences in operating statistics. In the STAR report provided, the subject's statistics are also blended in with 4 other properties (picked by the subject's owner per PET's statement) listed on page 17 of the PET's evidence. The PAO notes the Ramada Naples has exterior corridors (opened in 1964), the Staybrige Suites is comparable & opened in 1999), the Courtyard Naples opened in 1996, and the Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham is an interstate property that opened in 2000. It is significant that the properties used in the STAR report were the properties (apparently) selected by the owner, and that does not necessarily mean that they were the most comparable properties appropriate (which should be at the discretion of the analyst normally). Regardless, I am able to review the report provided to make the following observations and conclusions from what is presented. While the subject's owner never provided historical operating information to the PAO, some of that important information is presented in the PET's evidence within the STAR report, given (apparently) the subject is a participating property subscribing to Smith Travel Research. Therefore, the subject's owner voluntarily provides annual operating information to Smith Travel Research, and some key indicators are reported in what has been provided in the STAR Report. A.) The subject's 2014 occupancy for 2014 apparently was 79.6%, while the comp set occupancy was 74.5%. (i.e. the subject's occupancy was 6.85% better than the comp set selected by the PET/owner). B.) The subject's 2014 ADR for 2014 apparently was $139.20, while the comp set occupancy was $117.17. (i.e. the subject's ADR was 18.8% better than the comp set selected by the PET/owner). C.) The subject's RevPAR (i.e. revenue per available room, or EGI per room) for 2014 apparently was $110.76, while the comp set RevPAR was $87.26. (i.e. the REVPar was 26.9% better than the comp set selected by the PET/owner). Given the subject is SUBSTANTIALLY superior to the comp set via the three different indicators noted, one can argue that the comp set is perhaps not as comparable as it could or should be. Therefore, to call the OWNER-SELECTED comp set for this hearing the appropriate `comp set for the market' comes into question. The "market" comp set should be chosen by the analyst familiar with the local market. Otherwise (and with the available data), one could argue, "Why not go ahead and use the subject's information by reconstructing the PET's pro-forma and using the PET's inputs?" This becomes an excellent question, given some of the revenue side is definitely skewed to an inferior situation that apparently is not sufficiently reflective of the subject's location and earning potential. The Income Approach is a forward-looking approach into the future, yet certainly many projections can be based upon past performance for stabilized properties (like the subject). Therefore, I have used the key indicators and reconstructed the PET's pro-forma as follows: PGI = 365 days/year X 120 rooms X $140 ADR (conservative estimate by taking the 2014 ADR of$139.20, and rounded it upward to the closest dollar, given an upward substantial trend of 14.9% from the subject property over the past 12 months). This equates to PGI of$6,132,000. Occupancy of 79.6% for 2014 equates to a deduct of 20.4%, resulting in EGI of $4,881,072. Expenses deducted at 68% (using the PET's figure) results in NOI of$1,561,943 [$13,016/room, which is still several thousand dollars less than the PKF report for facilities with room rates above $115], divided by the PET's loaded OAR selection of 9.81% [one can argue easily that the survey data could/should result in a slightly lower OAR, such as the PAO's loaded 9.5% OAR). Using the PET's OAR, a value indication of$15,921,947 is evident. The PET admitted to some `double dipping' by deducing out the TPP, as well as also taking a 15% COS deduction, given the COS is partially to account for TPP. So if TPP of$1,042,296 (6.55% of the preliminary value) is deducted, a figure of$14,879,651 results. Taking another 8.45% (i.e. 15% - 6.55%) for COS, an additional $1,257,833 is deducted, resulting in a `just value' indication of$13,621,768. Coincidentally, this just happens to be EXTREMELY close to (and highly supportive of) the PAO's just value assessment being contested of$13,326,913. It is noteworthy to point out that while the PAO's Income Approach was simplistic, it resulted in an NOI/room of$13,797, which happens to also be very close to the recalculated amount I have provided above of $13,016. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The subject's own operating information suggests that when market- oriented expenses and deductions are applied, the PAO's assessment is quite reasonable. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. Furthermore, the reconstruction of the PET's Income Approach using some key inputs for ADR, occupancy, and REVPar reveal that the PAO's assessment is quite accurate, because the data set is not weighted down (skewed) by under-performing properties. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00229 Parcel ID 00177000001 Petitioner name MARCUS CAPOUANO Property 8930 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record El taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ej Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,479,892.00 3,479,892.00 3,479,892.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,367,965.00 3,367,965.00 3,367,965.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,367,965.00 3,367,965.00 3,367,965.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/23/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Nicholas Mau, CCIM and Ms. Katelyln Andrews, both with Ryan, LLC. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding restaurant building, known as Seasons 52", constructed in 2011. It is located at 8930 Tamiami Trail North in Naples. The subject has a building size of 9,379 SF situated upon a site of 117,998 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photo, building sketch, and building card information. The PAO used all three traditional approaches to value. The PAO also notes the subject previously sold as vacant land for $2.9M in September 2010, and then the new restaurant structure was built. The contested just value is $3,479,892 (i.e. $371.03/SF of building). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of $2,600,000 (i.e. $277.21/SF of building), yet the PET (as implied) is asking for a just value $300,000 less than what the buyer paid for the lot slightly more than 4 years before the assessment date. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF + impact fees of $486,862, for a total of$5,206,782. The land estimate was based upon 26 land sale indicators (most were `residual' indicators; whereby, the land value is obtained via abstraction). The PAO also considered one active listing at $45.28/SF located about 4 miles south of the subject on Tamiami Trail North. It is noted that 4 of the PAO's land sales closed after the assessment date, but are considered for trending purposes. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of Tamiami Trail North land value indicators. Based upon the data presented, it appears the PAO's land value & impact fees are well supported. The PAO provides a location map for the sales, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO also provides Marshall Valuation cost figures for the depreciated value of the improvement estimate of$1,565,681. The resulting Cost Approach estimate is $6,772,463. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 16 improved restaurant sales from various locations in SW Florida. The majority of the sales are located in Lee County and many of the sales are fast-good oriented chains. Four of the 16 sales closed after the assessment date, but are considered for trending purposes. The PAO reports price per square foot of building indicators that range from $214.15-$890/SF. The subject's "Naples address" along Highway 41 is considered superior to the Lee and Charlotte County transactions. The subject is considered a very large single user restaurant of more than 9,000 SF, compared to all of the sales considered. The PAO concludes $500/SF of building area (i.e. $4,689,500) for the subject, which is generally toward the upper end of many of the sales. It is noted that the subject is somewhat connected by a driveway to the Mercato shopping center, which is just north of the subject. According to the PAO, the Mercado center recently sold as the most expensive retail centers in Collier County. There is a prominent Walgreens located immediately south of the subject upon the NE corner of U.S. 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. In the Income Approach, the PAO applies a rental rate of$50/SF, vacancy at 0%, and expenses of 15%, resulting in NOI of$398,607. Then a loaded OAR of 8.2% is applied, for a total Income Approach value of$4,861,061. The PAO does include various cap rate and rental data for SW Florida, yet that data is more mainstream commercial real estate, & not specifically geared specifically toward freestanding restaurants. Some of the PAO's general real estate data does adequately prove the general real estate data from Collier County outperforms other SW Florida Counties. This helps the PAO's assertion that the subject's location in Naples is worth significantly more than if it were located in Lee County. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing reasonable conclusions via three approaches to value. The recent land sale of the subject for $2.9M, and subsequent construction of a new restaurant is also highly supportive of the assessment. The Petitioner (PET) provides a summary of information, the PAO's Internet data and assessment breakdown, 2 aerial photographs, exterior photographs, building sketch, location map, Income Approach, various `market support' exhibits (cap rate surveys, etc.), the 2015 Collier County DR-493, Comparable Sales Approach, and Costar sales sheets. The PET argues that while the subject is in close proximity to Mercato, it is not immediately adjacent to it. The subject has a service driveway connecting it to Mercado. In the Income Approach, the PET prepares a pro-forma analysis by projecting rent of $27/SF NNN, 5% vacancy & collection loss, 9% expenses, and then applies an unloaded OAR of 6% resulting in a value indication of$3,367,999. The PET then applies a 15% COS deduction, resulting in a just value indication of$2,862,799. Again, the subject previously sold as vacant land for $2.9M in September 2010 without its brand new quality restaurant building of more than 9,000 SF, plus site work and impact fees. The PET's use of 4 rent comparables built in '79, '70, '62, and another renovated in '05 is useful in the identification of some large leases, but perhaps the PET could have considered the higher end of that rental range of$35/SF NNN for a 10,000 SF building as more representative, or a rate even higher. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PET presents a grid of 12 sales (2 from Collier County that closed in '13, 10 from Lee County (2 closed in 2013 & 8 in 2014. The PET's sales range in $/SF indicators from $101.49-$331.92. The PET gives weight to the higher end of the range by using $320/SF, then applies a 15% COS deduction with a resulting just value indicator of$2,552,088. Again, the subject previously sold as vacant land for $2.9M in September 2010 without its brand new quality restaurant building of more than 9,000 SF, plus site work and impact fees. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. RULING: The PET's representatives are far less familiar with prevailing land values in Collier County. Given that in this particular hearing, the subject improvements are relatively new, the Cost Approach becomes far more relevant. Land is valued as if vacant and available to be put to its H&BU• Had the PET prepared a Cost Approach, the PET would have then been in a better position to realize that the prior sale of the subject's site was far more in line with market expectations. Most Seasons 52 restaurants are built with good quality construction; thus, the relatively new vertical improvements should add significant value, along with the impact fees and site work. The PET never suggests the subject suffers from any functional or external obsolescence. The PET values the subject as a freestanding restaurant via two approaches, but fails to take into consideration the higher quality of location, condition, age, and features. I give strong consideration to the prior sale of the subject's land and subsequent construction costs, along with some location adjustments applied to the price per square foot indicactors of many of the PAO's sales above $300/SF. Thus, the subject's assessment at $371.03/SF of building area does not appear unreasonable when considering the substantial difference in prevailing values/rents in Collier County, as opposed to Lee County. A variety of comparative examples were provided in the PAO's evidence package. Had the PET even considered a rental rate at the high end of his search at $37/SF NNN and used all of his same Income Approach assumptions for the subject's good location and newer age, the PET would have derived a value indicator supportive of the PAO's just value. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. \� Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00232 Parcel ID 06050000708 Petitioner name MARCUS CAPOUANO Property 800 GOODLETTE RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 6,822,730.00 6,822,730.00 6,539,726.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 6,822,730.00 6,822,730.00 6,539,726.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 6,822,730.00 6,822,730.00 6,539,726.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/22/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Nicholas Mau, CCIM and Ms. Katelyln Andrews, both with Ryan, LLC. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as Commons V Building, which is a medical office building constructed in 1991. It is located at 800 Goodlette Road in Naples. The subject has a building size of 60,095 SF situated upon a site of 150,561 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photo, building sketch, and building card information. The PAO used all three traditional approaches to value. The contested just value is $6,822,730 (i.e. $113.53/SF of building). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$5,489,648 (i.e. $91.35/SF of building). The PAO noted this property tends to get appealed every year. In recent years, the PAO has agreed to lower the subject's assessment in 2013 & 2014. The PAO is not sure why the subject now has excessively high vacancy by comparison with the overall office market in Naples. The PAO questions whether the vacancy has anything to do with the market, and perhaps more to do with the subject's form of operations or management. The PAO questions why the PET requests a value so low (near $90/SF), given there have not been sales that low over recent years. The PAO deferred the remainder of his testimony until he could hear further explanations from the PET regarding the subject's issues. The Petitioner (PET) provides testimony, and Mr. Mau indicates this is his first year representing this property; thus, he was not very familiar with its history in prior years. PET indicates the subject's occupancy is now 50%. PET presents both an `actual' and `pro-forma' Income Approach. He fails to include his 18-month lease-up calculations, but he estimates the total lease-up at $1,024,372. His pro-forma (after 15% COS) estimate is $5,489,648 via the Income Approach. The PET includes historical 2014 operating information, as well as a rent roll, as of the assessment date. Rent comparables are provided, along with their corresponding Costar sheets. The subject's asking rental Costar information is also included. Cap rate surveys and Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) market information is included. Costar's Collier County Class A, B, C office data information is included, along with the PAO's DR-493 for 2015. The subject is not in the immediate proximity of a hospital, yet is about a mile away. Historically though, the subject has had a history of medical tenants. Mr. Quinby (with the PAO) notes there are many other medical office users in this immediate area. There was substantial discussion between the parties to the hearing in an attempt to understand why the subject's occupancy had dropped to such a low level. Ultimately, the PET accepted a verbal offer from the PAO to lower the assessment to the 2014 level. RULING: After considerable verbal discussions back and forth between the PAO & PET, the PAO made an offer at the hearing to lower the 2015 assessment to the prior 2014 assessment of$6,539,726. This amount was verbally accepted at the hearing by the PET. Therefore, the assessment is adjusted & lowered accordingly. Conclusions of Law: Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment at the hearing [Section 194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record (via verbal testimony and offer by the PAO and acceptance by the PET) to establish a revised just value of$6,539,726. This value was also the PAO's assessment for 2014. [Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. Received On: 11/30/2015 9:51:25 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2015-00240 FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00240 Parcel ID 19013000004 Petitioner name SHEILA ANDERSON Property 294 9TH STS The petitioner is: 71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,175,197.00 2,175,197.00 2,175,197.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,818,618.00 1,818,618.00 1,818,618.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,818,618.00 1,818,618.00 1,818,618.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Received On: 11/30/2015 9:51:25 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2015-00240 Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Mr. Gaylord Wood (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The PET was represented by Ms. Sheila Anderson with Commercial Property Services, Inc., who is a real estate broker in the State of Florida. PAO TESTIMONY: As for evidence submitted, the PAO includes a copy of business cards for the PAO's staff, an aerial photograph, building sketch, building card information, Cost Approach (with Marshall Valuation information), sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach, roster of drug store `for sale' listings, Income Approach, capitalization rate surveys, Loopnet office/retail/industrial asking price information, Costar year-end 2014 rental comparisons in SW Florida (by County and Region). The PAO also presented one active NNN $9.25M listing for a freestanding retail box of 14,550 SF with a Walgreens tenant, located at 2511 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. In addition, the PAO presented a circuit court `amended final judgment on remand' for a case relating to CVS v. Jim Todora (Sarasota County Property Appraiser). The PAO also presented into evidence a 79-page package of information relating to their `2015 tax Roll Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data', FL Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, with FL law, opinions, etc. The PAO discusses the discount relating to the FL Department of Revenue Guidelines for the County's tax rolls. The PAO does include a DR-493 form for 2015 for Collier County, which indicates a 15% adjustment for all use codes. Mr. Stephens has included this supplemental package with all 2015 petitions to the VAB as part of the PAO's evidence. As of the assessment date, the subject property was operated as a 1-story freestanding retail building occupied by CVS. It was originally built in 1995, with 9,940 SF of building area situated upon a site of 32,815 SF, or 0.75 acres. The subject is located at the NW corner of Tamiami Trail North and 3rd Avenue South in Naples. The PAO uses all 3 traditional approaches to value. In the PAO's Cost Approach, the PAO only presents a roster of 30 land sale indicators/residuals, as well as two land listings. The land value indicators are situated along the Highway 41 corridor primarily, yet some are also located on (or west of) the Gooddlette-Frank Road corridor. It is noted that 5 of the PAO's sales indicators closed after the assessment date; thus are given far less weight other than for trending purposes. The PAO notes that there has been a dramatic increase in sales activity in 2014 and leading into 2105, which demonstrates strong demand and appreciation. From the land data (all situated along Tamiami Trail), the PAO concludes a land value of$85/square foot X the subject's land area of 32,815, then adds impact fees of$109,150 for a preliminary value of$2,898,425. Impact fees `run with the land', even if the structure is demolished; thus, the impact fees remain significant. PAO's land sales #10 & #12 are true land sales, that are both in close proximity to the subject and sold for $97.58/SF and $86.80/SF, respectively in the downtown core area. The AV of $2,175,197 = 75% of the land + impact fee value in support of the assessment, even without any positive value contribution associated with the vertical improvements that could also have been considered by the PAO, given the vertical improvements were built in 1995. The PAO notes that Highway 41 frontage in this area is prime and expensive. Values tend to drop off somewhat when getting further away from Tamiami Trail. In the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a roster of 16 improved sales (6 which closed in January 2015). There were ten sales that closed prior to the Received On: 11/30/2015 9:51:25 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2015-00240 assessment date, but none that closed during 2014. Six of the 16 sales were from Collier County, while the balance are located in other parts of Florida 9including Lee & Sarasota Counties, among others). The subject's total assessment is $218.83/SF of building area, while the PAO concludes $450/SF (i.e. $4,473,000) from the roster of NNN leased fee (not fee simple) sales. The PAO states that he gives `little to no weight to the comparable sales'. It would seem appropriate to give serious consideration to the PAO's improved sales, given they were NNN (i.e. `net lease') transactions; while the subject is to be assessed unencumbered on a fee simple basis. The PAO does note `drug store listings' from Loopnet with list prices generally in the $300-$600/SF range, and asking price cap rate indicators generally between 4.5-6% in most cases. In the PAO's Income Approach, the PAO applies a rental rate of$40/SF, 5% vacancy rate, & 25% expenses, and then applies a loaded OAR of 7.2% (6.0% + 1.2%) to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of$3,934,583 via this approach. The PAO does provide various supporting exhibits for the OAR selection, yet it is acknowledged some of that support is from net leased properties. It is also noted the PAO gives very little market support to the rental rate estimate of$40/SF. The PAO's active listing of a brand new Walgreens in Naples indicates an NOI (and basically an asking rental rate with no vacancy or expenses deducted) at $30.10/SF. Regardless, the PAO again gives little to no weight to the Income Approach, given a lot of the PAO's evidence relates to encumbered (not fee simple) situations and NNN properties [as was the case with the improved sales indicators used by the PAO]. Based upon the PAO's evidence & testimony, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness, especially with the land value support. The land value support alone is sufficient in this case to justify the PAO's entire assessment, given the land value of $2,898,425 equates to 133% of the just value of$2,175,197 being contested. There is more than ample COS consideration being considered by the PAO. PET TESTIMONY: In evidence, the Petitioner (PET) provides a summary of the subject and its assessment information, a copy of the petition, a pro-forma Income Approach, Loopnet rental listings, rental location map, a pro-forma Income Approach for a CVS at a different location, 2015 ICSC Florida Retail Report, OF Survey of Emerging Market Conditions-1st Qtr 2015, CBRE Cap Rate Survey 2nd half 2014, excerpt from DOR's training manual Module 6 relating to the Eight Criterion, Collier County DR-493 for 2015, subject's building card info, various articles, legal rulings, subject's tax roll information (from the PAO's web site), subject's aerial photograph, subject's TRIM notice, subject's (partial) cost/permit information, improved sales/map/back-up tax roll sheets, and a variety of legal case information and correspondence. The PET also provides an article (of an unknown but likely recent date) by Dougall Mccorkle, MBA regarding land scarcity in Naples. That article really does not focus on land values specific to the subject, which is near the downtown core. The PET does show one land listing [apparently from May 2013] on the North Trail for $4.64/SF, but as the PAO notes, it is almost 6 miles north of the subject & not relevant to the subject's location. During testimony, the PET also becomes critical of the PAO's use of hand-written building card data & states she has "not seen hand-written data in any other jurisdiction." The use of hand-written building card data (or combination of computerized and hand- written data) is quite common, as a substantial quantity of buildings in FL were built prior to the computerization of county property appraiser data. Regardless, it is a moot point and appears irrelevant to this hearing, as the PET fails to prove subject's records Received On: 11/30/2015 9:51:25 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2015-00240 are treated differently to then manner in which the Collier County Property Appraiser treats other properties of its type. The vast majority of VAB cases I have heard for 2015 and in prior years in Collier County include similar hand-written building card data in evidence to VAB hearings. PET states she is not `falling into a trap' and `will not state a value' she is seeking. Granted, there is no requirement for a Petitioner to have an opinion of value at a VAB hearing. In the PET's summary sheet, she is appears to be pointing to a just value of $1,437,729 [after 15% COS deduction], or $144.64/SF of building area, based upon her projection of income. In the PETs Income Approach [in her summary sheet], the PET applies a local base rent of$17.01/SF to 9,940 SF, a 6.6% vacancy rate. 20% expenses, to derive NOI of$126,351, then applies a loaded OAR of 7.47% (6.41% + 1.06 apparent millage rate) for a value indicator of$1.438M (rounded). The PET presents 3 rent comparables along Tamiami Trail with rental rates of$12/SF, $12/SF, and $23/SF, but none of those rent comparables are in the subject's immediate downtown area. It is not clear if the PET's rent comparables were available for rent on the assessment date, as their listing sheets were all dated 9/30/2015, well after the assessment date. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET presents 5 improved sales, but does not give the building age of any of the sales. Per the PAO, the PET's 5 sales were built in 1970, 1953, 1968, 1963 and 1969, while the subject was built in 1995. The PAO also did include PET's sales PET labels as #2 & #3, but PET's sale (called #8) was not actually a sale at all. PET's sale (labeled #5) closed back in 2010, while PET's sale labeled #10 actually closed in 2006. PET's grid does provide an "INDICATED JUST VALUE of $1,814,746, even though PET states she will not `fall into that trap' of providing a value indication. PET was unable or unwilling to provide an answer as to which of her values she gave more weight to (i.e. the Income Approach value of$1,437,729, or the Sales Comparison Approach value of$1,814,746). Again, the PET is not required to give any value estimate at all, as she explicitly states on the record (even though she does twice in writing). RULING: The PET also provides an article (of an unknown but likely recent date) by Dougall McCorkle, MBA regarding land scarcity in Naples. That article notes land values in the North Trail now in the $2M/acre range ($45.91/SF), but the North Trail is quite long and the subject is also within the downtown core area, yet also with the added benefit of having frontage on the Tamiami Trail. While the $45/SF figure does appear reasonably supported by quite a few of the PAO's land sales along the Trail further north (away from downtown), that article does not address land values downtown like the subject. The article suggests that due to a scarcity of true vacant parcels along the North Trail, investors and builders will be encouraged to seek parcels in other areas (generally further East in Collier County), or further north into Lee County. The PET fails to provide any meaningful land value analysis specific to the subject, nor any meaningful cost data relevant to the subject, other than (what appears to be) only a partial roster of limited building permit activity that totals approximately $90K-$95K. The PAO's vertical cost approach indicates cost figures at almost l0X that amount at $955,000. The PET's extremely limited and partial cost figures fail to make any sense, or provide anything meaningful to refute the PAO's assessment or even point to a supportable alternate figure. The PET fails to adequately consider highest & best use (H&BU) by failing to properly consider and estimate the underlying land value. The land value (plus any impact fees inherent in the existing building) is the basic building block of value that Received On: 11/30/2015 9:51:25 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2015-00240 enables the H&BU to be determined. Interestingly and perhaps inadvertently, the PET DOES support the PAO's land value estimate of$85/SF, given the PET's improved sale @ 160 9th Street (also used by the PAO & built in '1970) has a land residual value of $87.82/SF of land, and PET's improved sale at 609 8th Street South (and also used by the PAO & built in 1953) has a land residual indicator of$150.52/SF. Both are also 2014 sales. Given these two sales reflect common data deemed important enough for BOTH the PET & PAO to include as evidence, I also deem this information highly relevant for consideration, especially when it comes to supporting the land value, even though the subject was built in 1995, and (structurally speaking) there could very well be many more years of remaining economic life. The issue of this hearing is that the PAO estimates the subject's land value at $85/SF, plus impact fees of$109,150, for a total indication (without any influences of net lease situations) of$2,898,425. Indirectly and by use of the 2 common sales mentioned with very old structures, the PET seems to concur. Regardless, the PAO also has many other sales to support his land value conclusion, which leaves AMPLE COS consideration, even without having to consider any additional contributory value for vertical improvements that still could last for many more years. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The PAO does establish & maintain the presumption of correctness at the hearing. Received On: 11/30/2015 9:51:25 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No:2015-00240 FLED #43 L;ER r.,ouRry. FL oRin 1 NIS t4:1V 30 AM 9: 50 i CLERJI, OF COURTS _ . pr 44 E 1 7 0 ell 111 i e iloc2 rY)(3,:le‘i Vr1 e 44i. v114 F p 1:31 , . z ,it 4 m I'I: yi 1 , ;P iggiAtil ..4. I A ; 1 A M , a 13g Q Z ..., 0 0 ,..... ..,C) , a 4 .....6. 3 V i 4 / 33, 3 3 t Received On: 11/30/2015 9:51:25 AM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2015-00240 FILED #43 LiER COUNTY. FLORIO 2015 NOV 30 AM 9: 50 CLERK OF COURTS i €� • A1o0 aY_ ._ ____ _ _ r • me zed &� like o —; o 0 zr O . 0 co co m �� m —1D w r 4* m W m I13 O 0° o rn- Z C ►v n0 n v J N I v tf cn • FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 �� VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00254 Parcel ID 13650640001 Petitioner name BRIAN BASIL Property 261 7TH AVE N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,484,820.00 2,248,333.00 2,248,333.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,484,820.00 2,248,333.00 2,248,333.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,484,820.00 2,248,333.00 2,248,333.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment(i.e. the"revised TRIM"assessment of$2,248,333)stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/25/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The PAO officials were sworn in at this hearing. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. James Kent. A letter of authorization is in the record for Mr. Kent's appearance. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1968, and it is located on a dry, interior lot within the Naples Golf& Beach Club. It is located at 261 7th Avenue North in Naples, within very close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The subject has an adjusted building size of 3,266 SF. The subject has a screen- enclosed pool/spa and a 2-car garage. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $2,248,333. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $26,500/front foot (FF), which is inclusive of impact fees that run with the land. The PAO provides 3 `residual' land sale indicators [i.e. the 3 improved sales used by the PAO], based upon improved sales with the removal of the improved assessed portions of each respective sale. The resulting lot value of the subject is $2,506,754. The PAO provides a location map for the sales. The PAO then adds site improvements ($5,000) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($119,957) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,631,711. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 3 improved sales from the immediate neighborhood (all within a 3-block radius),yet Sale #2 is next door (to the west) of the subject & sold for $4.387M, while Sale #1 is 4 lots west of the subject & sold for $5.396M. Both Sales #1 & #2 are in the same street as the subject (7th Avenue North), but both are much newer and larger homes compared to the subject. Sale #3 is also much newer (built in '07) and larger home (5,441 SF) that sold for $4.075M. The PAO makes very substantial (i.e. $1.47M to $1.79M) negative adjustments to all 3 comparable sales, due to their superiority. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$2,700,000. The PAO argues the subject's land value alone (estimated by the APO to be $2.5M) is sufficient to support the assessment. The PAO indicated some sales were available with older structures on them; however, they were further from the Gulf of Mexico & much higher location adjustments would have been necessary. The PAO notes that the subject's original TRIM value was $2,484,000, then the subject (and many of the neighbors in this area) were re-Trimmed and the subject's revised just value (coming into this hearing) has been reduced to $2,248,333. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provides only a very brief written defense in the record of evidence by providing a 4/19/2013 and 3/14/2013 deed transfers of the prior (2013) sales of PAO's 2014 sale #2 for $4,387,000. There is no further explanation provided by Mr. Brian Basil, Esq. when he presented this information into evidence for this hearing. Mr. James Kent was explained the general VAB rules of procedure, as he had never attended a VAB hearing in the past. Mr. Kent is a friend and neighbor of the owner, but not a real estate professional or attorney. As of the assessment date, the property had lost its former homestead exemption (per Ms. Blaje), and the subject was also the topic of a recent homestead hearing heard by an attorney magistrate. Regardless, as of 1/1/2015, the subject is apparently not eligible for homestead protection. Mr. Kent did provide verbal testimony. He indicated that the older homes in the neighborhood are `knock downs'. None of the PET's evidence is conclusive of market conditions as of the assessment date. Simply providing two deeds from early 2013 for the same property does not translate into a conclusive argument sufficient to refute the PAO's 2015 assessment more than a year and a half later. RULING: Because the PET does not provide any `market' evidence whatsoever to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment, it is recommended the PAO's "revised TRIM" assessment of$2,248,333 should be upheld. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT Rule 12D-16.ode SSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier 4 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I),194.036, 194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00255 Parcel ID 13650640001 Petitioner name BRIAN BASIL Property 261 7TH AVE N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,484,820.00 2,248,333.00 2,248,333.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,484,820.00 2,248,333.00 2,248,333.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,484,820.00 2,248,333.00 2,248,333.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer 51 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 ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/08/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/10/2015 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 web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: This is a petition of the removal of a homestead exemption from property located at 261 7th Avenue South, Naples, Florida. Petitioner is Philip B. Harris. who currently owns the subject property. Mr. Harris was present for the hearing. The Property Appraiser ("PA") was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions Department, Jennifer Earle, Exemptions Department, and Jenny Blaje, Director, Tax Roll Compliance Department. All persons were sworn in. The Property Appraiser offered its evidence package consisting of 37 pages, which was admitted without objection as PA Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner offered a package containing 27 pages, which was admitted without objection as P. Composite Exhibit 1. The property has enjoyed a homestead exemption from 2005 through 2014. On February 11, 2014, Petitioner transferred title to Rivendale Partners LLC. (PAO 1, Deed; Harris). Rivendale Partners, LLC's sole member is Middle Earth Holdings, LLC., whose sole member is Philip Harris. (P.1, Operating Agreement) Rivendale is organized under Ohio laws for the purpose of engaging in "any lawful act, activity or business." (P.1., p.18) Petitioner did so to provide some anonymity for his family. (Harris) Although the deed was prepared by Petitioner's attorney, Petitioner was not aware that he would lose his homestead exemption by transferring title to the LLC. (Petition; Harris) On January 1, 2015, the property was owned by the LLC., and the PA removed the homestead exemption. (Ybaceta) Mr. Harris also enjoys a residency based exemption for property located in Winnetka, Illinois. (PA 1, p.27)Petitioner was unaware that he was receiving a tax exemption for this residence. (Harris) The property was transferred back to Harris by deed recorded on September 8, 2015, and an application for homestead exemption was made on September 25, 2015, which was filed after the deadline for VAB filing. No justification was given for the late filed application. Conclusions of Law: hSection 196.031, Fla. Stat., states that any person who, on January 1, has the "legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence . . . is entitled to an exemption from all taxation." The origin of this tax exemption is Article VII, Section 6(a), of the Florida Constitution. This constitutional provision states how title to the real estate may be held in order to be eligible for the exemption and includes both legal and equitable title. The legislature enacted s. 196.041, Fla. Stat., to implement this constitutional provision, and this statute enumerates a list of eligible holders of equitable title. This list does include tenant-stockholders or members of a cooperative apartment corporation, but does not include stockholders in a for-profit corporation or members in an limited liability company. This statutory list has been held to be exclusive by Florida authority, and cannot be interpreted as applying to other business entities, regardless of their purpose or whether they are solely owned by the resident/occupant of the property. See 2007 Fla. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 18; Prewitt Management Corp. v. Nikolits, 795 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), Consequently, there is no legal basis to grant a homestead exemption to an LLC. Although Petitioner and his family have continued to make the property their permanent residence, as of January 1 they did not hold legal or beneficial title to the property, which is a requirement of the homestead exemption. Although the deed transfer may be qualified as inadvertent, the statutes do not provide any relief for the inadvertent abandonment of a homestead. Moreover, even if there were some relief to be found in the statutes for a mistake or hardship, the PA established that Petitioner enjoyed a tax exemption in another state which was based on permanent residency in that state. This information alone was sufficient to disqualify Petitioner for a Florida homestead exemption. See 196.031(5), Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's decision to remove the homestead exemption was wrong. The facts in this case are undisputed and all credible and relevant evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the home was owned by an Ohio LLC on January 1, 2015 and that Mr. Harris and his family reside there permanently. The question is merely a legal one as to whether Mr. Harris could be said to hold equitable title in the property sufficient to qualify him for homestead or, conversely, whether the legal owner, Rivendale Partners LLC, was otherwise entitled to a homestead exemption under Florida law. The Florida Constitution and statutes, and the law interpreting these statutes, support the Property Appraiser's denial of the exemption in this case. The Petitioner has failed to meet his burden and the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 ` VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 171 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00256 Parcel ID 35753360004 Petitioner name ARE SOLUTIONS Property 2065 SUNNYLAND LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition EZ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,324,416.00 3,324,416.00 3,200,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,324,416.00 3,324,416.00 3,200,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,324,416.00 3,324,416.00 3,200,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/28/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) did attend the hearing, and was represented by Mr. Rooney of ARE Solutions. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 44-unit LITCH (Low Income Tax Credit Housing) apartment development home built in 2002. 22 units have 2, while the remaining 22 units have 3 bathrooms. The subject is known as "Sunnyland Apartments". It is located at 2065 Sunnyland Lane in Golden Gate City. The adjusted building size is 49,896 SF, or 1,134 SF/unit. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$3,324,416 ($75,555/unit). The PET requests an assessment of$2.85M ($64,773/ unit). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a valuation summary, color aerial photo, building sketches, location/sales map, Cost Approach/Marshall Valuation support, Sales Comparison Approach, `typical' Income Approach [without the benefit of actual information, as will be discussed], impact fee calculations, Cap rates/trends, Costar rental comparison data, Loopnet Asking Price Index exhibit, Bergstrom Center Market Condition Survey for the 3rd Quarter 2014/2015 cap rates, apartment Cap rate exhibit, and the subject's building card information. The PAO notes the prior sale of the subject for $3.2M in January 2010. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25,000/unit X 44 units, plus impact fees ($436,697). Site work was not included, but could have been included for additional value in this estimate. The land + impact fees equate to $1,536,697. The PAO provides 5 land sales & 1 land listing, which do appear highly supportive of the PAO's land value conclusion. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($3,155,671) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$4,692,368. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 6 improved sales within Collier County (sale #2 is the re-sale of#1). The PAO uses a $/SF and $/ bedroom as the units of comparison. The subject is assessed at $66.63/SF, or $30,222/ bedroom. Those two indicators fall within the middle of the ranges of the corresponding indicators derived from the improved sales presented. The Gordon River (sale #6) was a HUD project with small average unit sizes, and all 1/1 units. The PAO stated he did not give much weight to the Gordon River sale. In his conclusion, the PAO gives weight to $70/SF X 48,896, less a TPP deduction ($13,180), for a final Sales Comparison Approach value estimate of$3,479,540. In the Income Approach, the PAO stated he was not provided with historical operating information to directly consider when the subject's assessment was originally prepared, but the PAO had previously requested it from the owner of the property. Florida law states that the PAO `must recognize' the actual income for this property type in the assessment process. Therefore, the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach are far less relevant in the assessment process, unless certain financial data (such as OAR's, etc.) may be derived from those approaches. Florida law does not dictate the PAO `must USE' the subject's actual income,just `recognize' it. In this case, if the PET or owner fails to provide it to the PAO when the assessment is being estimated, there is no way the PAO can `recognize' it. However, the PAO does have a variety of other LITCH financial information available from properties that directly compete with the subject in the Collier County market, and those competitors do submit information regularly to the PAO. The term `income' (as used in the law) can also have different meanings, as perhaps it could be interpreted as `gross' (PGI), or `effective gross income' (EGI), or perhaps net income (NOI). There is a distinction between the terms that does appear to be open up a gray area of analysis in the assessment process, perhaps by design by the FL legislature when they wrote the law pertaining to the assessment of this class of apartments. In his evidence submittal into the record that the PAO initially used to prepare the subject's assessment, the PAO projects the subject's `typical' (i.e. market) income at $12,000/uni/year (i.e. $1,000/month/unit), 5% vacancy, 45% expenses [without real property taxes], and then applies a loaded OAR of 7.7% to the NOI of$275,880, then makes a TPP deduction ($13,180) for a final Income Approach value indication of $3,665,220). From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided timely evidence into the record before the hearing. The PET submitted the subject's tax roll breakdown from the PAO's web site, income/ expense pro-forma (as of 1/1/2015), income/expenses for 2014, Integra 2014 Mid-Year Viewpoint/Multi-family Snapshot article for Naples, a rent roll (as of 8/28/2015), rent comparables, rent comparables map, RERC Investment Criteria - 4 Q 2014 for 2nd & 3rd tier properties, Improved sales sheets from Loopnet, grid of 5 comparable sales, improved sales map, and additional back-up deeds and information pertaining to the sales. Mr. Wood makes a mild objection and cites that in the Higgs vs. Good case. He notes that the Higgs v. Good case is the case that held that where a taxpayer refused to provide his income data to the Property Appraiser when the Property Appraiser was trying to prepare the tax roll, the taxpayer could not later use that data in an administrative or judicial challenge to their property tax assessment (yes, the case did expressly say "administrative or judicial"). Fla. Stat. 194.034 still prohibits the VAB from accepting evidence if the Property Appraiser requested it from the petitioner in connection with the VAB proceeding and the petitioner had knowledge of it, but declined to provide it to the Property Appraiser. If such a request is made by the Property Appraiser , Rule 12D-9.020(8) deems the petitioner's evidence timely if it is submitted at least 15 days before the hearing. The failure of the owner to provide the PAO's requested data is obviously the fault of the owner, and not this specific PET representative now acting on behalf of the owner. Regardless, Mr. Stephens decided that he would consider the historical operating information and Mr. Stephens made an offer to settle this hearing for a revised (lower) assessment of $3,200,000. The PET verbally accepted this offer from the PAO; thus, I am in agreement and grant this reduction. RULING: The PET verbally accepted a lower value offer from the PAO. The historical operating data now provided to this hearing timely by the PET was not previously available to the PAO when the PAO originally requested it for the preparation of the subject's 2015 assessment. At the hearing, the PAO made an offer to lower the subject's assessment, based upon that new information. The PET accepted that offer of$3.2M; thus, I grant the reduction as agreed to by the parties to this hearing. The PET overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness originally established at the hearing. Relief is granted to $3.2M. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by property appraiser at the hearing [Section 194.301, F.S.]. Via offer by the PAO and agreement by the PET, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of $3,200,000 [Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. �\►� Effective 11/12 tXPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00257 Parcel ID 16001520007 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS Property 304 NEAPOLITANWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary E1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,143,102.00 4,143,102.00 4,143,102.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,211,638.00 3,211,638.00 3,211,638.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,161,638.00 3,161,638.00 3,161,638.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values 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 PAO's assessment is upheld, as the PET did not attend the hearing, did not submit any evidence, and did not provide any just cause for non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance. Conclusions of Law Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. (Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. EI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. ! Effective 11/12 [DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) _ Petition # 2015-00297 Parcel ID 00255091000 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 5305 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record j taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,680,754.00 2,680,754.00 2,680,754.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,680,754.00 2,680,754.00 2,680,754.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,680,754.00 2,680,754.00 2,680,754.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/25/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Derrick Dyslin) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Toys R Us retail store built in 1996 & located at 5305 North Airport Road in Naples (on the west side of Airport Pulling Road). The subject is an outparcel to a shopping center just north of the prime intersection of North Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road. The subject has an adjusted building size of 30,585 SF situated upon a site of 130,600 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$2,680,754 (i.e. $87.65/SF of building area). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$2,266,195 (i.e. $74.10/SF of land area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $22/SF, plus $3,506,422 of impact fees for a total of$3,506,422. The PAO notes that the land value alone is sufficient to support the entire assessment. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,722,053), resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$5,278,475. The land value estimate was based upon the 13 outparcel land sale indicators, with #4, #6, and #9 being extremely close to the subject and very supportive of the $22/SF figure. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of commercial outparcel land indicators along comparable high traffic arteries. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 19 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in the State of Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, & other details relating to those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $150/SF of building area X 30,585 SF = $4,587,750 for the subject. The estimated price / SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. The PAO does not give much weight to the improved Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$4,535,537 (rounded), based upon a $16 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 20% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 8.2% applied to the NOI of$371,914. The PAO does not provide specific rent comparables for the subject; however, he does provide general market rental rate (and capitalization rate) norms for retail (and other) property types in Collier County, as well as other parts of SW Florida and compared to the entire State of Florida. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area, but also by the supporting evidence and inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. In the PET's Cost Approach, based upon a land value of$993,377. That figure apparently is based upon one land sale only that is not an outparcel & located on the East Trail (NOT on the same road as the subject, as PET indicates). The PAO indicates it is also a non-qualified sale (meaning it fails to meet DOR requirements for a sale the PAO's would be allowed to use because it fails to meet certain conditions). It is a narrow & deep property with an irregular shape. The PET's Cost Approach is disqualified, given it only uses that land sale as its only basis of a very key component of the subject's value. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET's exhibit indicates the subject's location is "Plant City", which is approximately 200 miles from the subject. The PET uses a rental rate of$8.00/SF. The Freedom Square rental is for a former K-mart space of$117,162, while the subject is 30,585 SF. The PET's 2nd rental is mainly for `in line' small rental bays in the Gulf Gate Plaza (also on the East Trail), but there is also an unknown space of 46,000 SF for an outparcel. There is no published rate, but the PET writes in $6-$8/ SF, depending upon terms. The PET's rent comparables do not appear comparable to the subject; however, an argument can be made that the PAO's rent comparables also are inadequate, given the PAO does not present any. I give no weight to the PET's Income Approach, but at least the PAO has some published market norms for retail space in Collier County. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides four improved sales that offer no degree of comparability to the subject's property type, location, or outparcel status. Sales #1 and #2 are multi-tenant properties. Sales #3 and #4 are 2013 sales. #3 is the former Naples Fitness building purchased by a church for a sanctuary. #4 is a boat storage facility, not a freestanding retail box. I give no weight to the PET's Sales Comparison Approach. RULING: By providing three approaches with no merit worthy of consideration whatsoever, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. 4 Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00298 Parcel ID 00177000205 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 8900 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 11 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,910,145.00 2,910,145.00 2,910,145.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,824,935.00 2,824,935.00 2,824,935.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,824,935.00 2,824,935.00 2,824,935.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Derrick Dyslin) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Walgreens store built in 1997, located at 8900 Tamiami Trail North in Naples. The subject is just south of the Mercato Shopping Center, and at the traffic-lighted intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Tamiami Trail. The subject has an adjusted building size of 17,310 SF situated upon a site of 95,396 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$2,910,145 (i.e. $168.12/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF, plus $214,431 of impact fees for a total of$4,030,271. The PAO could have added the depreciated value of the improvements, resulting in an even higher Cost Approach estimate. The land value estimate was based upon the 26 land sale indicators (sales & `residuals'), along with 1 current listing. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of commercial land indicators along Tamiami Trail in Naples. The PAO does provide back- up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO and I both give greatest weight to this approach, as it is typically not influenced by leases and it provides the best `fee simple' manner to analyze this property type. It is stressed that the PAO could have easily added more value justification to this approach by including the depreciated value of the structure built in 1999; however, the PAO did not need to do this to support the assessment in this particular case. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 16 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in the State of Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, & other details relating to those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $450/SF of building area X 17,310 SF = $7,789,500 for the subject. The estimated price/SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, most (if not all) of the sales are leased fee sales on long term net leases backed by corporate guarantees, and not fee simple sales that would be more comparable and appropriate for the assessment process. For this reason, both the PAO & I do not give much weight to the PAO's improved Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$6,851,875, based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 25% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of $493,335. The PAO does not provide specific rent comparables for the subject; however, he does provide general market rental rate (and capitalization rate) norms for retail (and other) property types in Collier County, as well as other parts of SW Florida and compared to the entire State of Florida. The PAO does indirectly provides drug store leases in his exhibit of"Drug Store For Sale Listings", given asking prices and asking cap rates are provided. By doing the math by multiplying the two, the annual rent becomes evident (and that is without any deductions for vacancy or expenses by the way most of these `net lease' transactions are marketed). Thus, indirectly, the PAO's asking rent does appear within reason, but that is based upon other net lease (i.e. leased fee not fee simple) offering prices backed by corporate guarantees. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area and Cost Approach conclusion. It is stressed that the PAO could have easily added more value justification to this approach by including the depreciated value of the structure built in 1997; however, the PAO did not need to do this to support the assessment in this particular case. However, the PAO's inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach are less reliable indicators, because they both tend to be high because of leased fee influences that are not consistent with the fee simple assessment process. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. The PET's evidence package for this hearing was mixed in with the evidence for multiple other petitions on this same hearing date, which makes it far more cumbersome to locate each petition's relevant evidence. It is the job of the PET to present clear and organized evidence supportive of each individual petition, as they are heard and assessed independently. The PET fails to do this, and compounds the problem by not attending the hearing to provide verbal clarification. In the PET's Cost Approach, he concludes a land value of$712,608, or $7.47/SF. It is very difficult to follow the PET's logic and data to support a figure that low after also reviewing the PAO's land sale and listing indicators within close proximity to the subject & along the Tamiami Trail Corridor. Furthermore in his Cost Approach, the PET fails to account for entrepreneurial profit, fails to account for impact fees (which are significant at $214,431), fails to consider some of the PAO's timely land sale indicators from the subject's vicinity, and fails to consider some soft costs. These collective errors result the PET's total Cost Approach indication of$1,969,806, which is insufficient for serious consideration at this hearing. In reference to the PET's land value for this and related hearings from this petitioner, the PET provides an exhibit summarizing the various (6) subject petitions heard on this same date. The PET concludes land value estimates for these related hearings between $7.04/SF to $7.47/SF (without impact fees), while only one of the land value estimates (for the Walgreens on Marco Island) was higher at $15.73/SF (also without impact fees). These land values appear to be inconsistent with what a person familiar with the local Collier County market area would conclude for commercial outparcels and/or good commercial land parcels along busy traffic arteries. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET's exhibit indicates a value estimate of $2,335,424, which is below of the PAO's assessment of$2,910,145. The PET's Income Approach value is based upon a gross rental rate of$14.00/SF, 7% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves and a (high) market cap rate of 8.5%. The PET does not appear to provide much (if any) good market support for these inputs, particularly the OAR estimate & freestanding retail store rents. Many of the PET's rent comparables are `in-line' shopping center bays, not freestanding stores at traffic-lighted intersections. Had the PET used a more reasonable OAR estimate & more appropriate/comparable rent comparbles, the resulting value with the remaining set of inputs would have easily supported the assessment. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides six (6) improved sales in Naples that offer almost no comparability to the subject's property type and location on Marco Island. Sales #1 is a former funeral home [2 buildings], Sale #2 ($117.02/SF) is a restaurant/bar, and Sale #3 ($119.49/SF) is a 3-building property (one appears to be a former IHOP). Sale #4 could perhaps offer some degree of comparability as it is a 9,500 SF former retail flooring building, but it was an REO sold by failed Colonial Bank for $105.26/SF. Sale #5 is located just off Tamiami Trail, and is a 9,570 SF 2-story building with 2nd floor offices. Sale #6 appears to be perhaps a little more comparable modern building at 9995 Tamiami Trail North that sold for $171.98/SF, while the subject is assessed at $168.12/SF. Because of limited data regarding the sales (such as lack of year built, traffic counts, maps, etc.), it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the PET's sales without the benefit of verbal testimony or better evidence in the record. The PET's entire presentation of three approaches is very disorganized, confusing, not reconciled, inconsistent, biased, and does not appear to appear to be prepared by a person with local Collier County knowledge. RULING: By providing three approaches not worthy of serious consideration, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO does present a good and credible Cost Approach, which is a very good way to value this type of property on a fee simple basis. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00299 Parcel ID 56807880008 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 1800 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IA Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,956,535.00 1,956,535.00 1,956,535.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,956,535.00 1,956,535.00 1,956,535.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,956,535.00 1,956,535.00 1,956,535.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 NtIA DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00300 Parcel ID 00084040002 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 1450 IMMOKALEE DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,342,225.00 1,342,225.00 1,342,225.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,342,225.00 1,342,225.00 1,342,225.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,342,225.00 1,342,225.00 1,342,225.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed, Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00301 Parcel ID 64370000022 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 4290 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,773,408.00 1,773,408.00 1,773,408.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,773,408.00 1,773,408.00 1,773,408.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,773,408.00 1,773,408.00 1,773,408.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00302 Parcel ID 00154560807 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 13520 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,977,337.00 1,977,337.00 1,977,337.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,961,905.00 1,961,905.00 1,961,905.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,961,905.00 1,961,905.00 1,961,905.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. V Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00303 Parcel ID 66263000027 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 15295 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record [0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,858,423.00 1,858,423.00 1,858,423.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,795,210.00 1,795,210.00 1,795,210.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,795,210.00 1,795,210.00 1,795,210.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. * Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00304 Parcel ID 36316200005 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 4747 GOLDEN GATE PKWY The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record j taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,668,766.00 1,668,766.00 1,668,766.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,668,766.00 1,668,766.00 1,668,766.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,668,766.00 1,668,766.00 1,668,766.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed, Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. J Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final "' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194,036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00305 Parcel ID 37169520009 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 30 GOLDEN GATE BLVDW The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record lJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34117 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,673,586.00 1,673,586.00 1,673,586.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,673,586.00 1,673,586.00 1,673,586.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,673,586.00 1,673,586.00 1,673,586.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00306 Parcel ID 11280040002 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 2200 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.00 25(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,300,284.00 3,300,284.00 3,300,284.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,083,337.00 3,083,337.00 3,083,337.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,083,337.00 3,083,337.00 3,083,337.00 `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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Derrick Dyslin) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Walgreens store built in 2009, located at 2200 9th Street North in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 16,414 SF situated upon a site of 92,922 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$3,300,284 (i.e. $201.06/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF, plus $180,241 of impact fees for a total of$3,897,121. The PAO could have added the depreciated value of the improvements, resulting in an even higher Cost Approach estimate. The land value estimate was based upon the 26 land sale indicators (sales & `residuals'), along with 1 current listing. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of commercial land indicators along Tamiami Trail in Naples. The PAO does provide back- up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO and I both give greatest weight to this approach, as it is typically not influenced by leases and it provides the best `fee simple' manner to analyze this property type. It is stressed that the PAO could have easily added more value justification to this approach by including the depreciated value of the structure built in 2009; however, the PAO did not need to do this to support the assessment in this particular case. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 16 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in the State of Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, & other details relating to those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $450/SF of building area X 16,414 SF = $7,368,300 for the subject. The estimated price/SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, most (if not all) of the sales are leased fee sales on long term net leases backed by corporate guarantees, and not fee simple sales that would be more comparable and appropriate for the assessment process. For this reason, both the PAO & I do not give much weight to the PAO's improved Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$6,497,208, based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 25% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of $467,799. The PAO does not provide specific rent comparables for the subject; however, he does provide general market rental rate (and capitalization rate) norms for retail (and other) property types in Collier County, as well as other parts of SW Florida and compared to the entire State of Florida. The PAO does indirectly provides drug store leases in his exhibit of"Drug Store For Sale Listings", given asking prices and asking cap rates are provided. By doing the math by multiplying the two, the annual rent becomes evident (and that is without any deductions for vacancy or expenses by the way most of these `net lease' transactions are marketed). Thus, indirectly, the PAO's asking rent does appear within reason, but that is based upon other net lease (i.e. leased fee not fee simple) offering prices backed by corporate guarantees. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area and Cost Approach conclusion. It is stressed that the PAO could have easily added more value justification to this approach by including the depreciated value of the structure built in 2009; however, the PAO did not need to do this to support the assessment in this particular case. However, the PAO's inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach are less reliable indicators, because they both tend to be high because of leased fee influences that are not consistent with the fee simple assessment process. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. The PET's evidence package for this hearing was mixed in with the evidence for multiple other petitions on this same hearing date, which makes it far more cumbersome to locate each petition's relevant evidence. It is the job of the PET to present clear and organized evidence supportive of each individual petition, as they are heard and assessed independently. The PET fails to do this, and compounds the problem by not attending the hearing to provide verbal clarification. In the PET's Cost Approach, he concludes a land value of$653,192, or $7.03/SF. It is very difficult to follow the PET's logic and data to support a figure that low after also reviewing the PAO's land sale and listing indicators within close proximity to the subject & along the Tamiami Trail Corridor. Furthermore in his Cost Approach, the PET fails to account for entrepreneurial profit, fails to account for impact fees (which are significant at $180,241), fails to consider some of the PAO's timely land sale indicators from the subject's vicinity, and fails to consider some soft costs. These collective errors result the PET's total Cost Approach indication of$2,196,010, which is insufficient for serious consideration at this hearing. In reference to the PET's land value for this and related hearings from this petitioner, the PET provides an exhibit summarizing the various (6) subject petitions heard on this same date. The PET concludes land value estimates for these related hearings between $7.04/SF to $7.47/SF (without impact fees), while only one of the land value estimates (for the Walgreens on Marco Island) was higher at $15.73/SF (also without impact fees). These land values appear to be inconsistent with what a person familiar with the local Collier County market area would conclude for commercial outparcels and/or good commercial land parcels along busy traffic arteries. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET's exhibit indicates a value estimate of $2,618,612, which is below of the PAO's assessment of$3,300,284. The PET's Income Approach value is based upon a gross rental rate of$16.50/SF, 7% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves and a (high) market cap rate of 8.5%. The PET does not appear to provide much (if any) good market support for these inputs, particularly the OAR estimate & freestanding retail store rents. Many of the PET's rent comparables are `in-line' shopping center bays, not freestanding stores at traffic-lighted intersections. Had the PET used a more reasonable OAR estimate & more appropriate/comparable rent comparbles, the same set of inputs would have easily resulted in a value estimate that would have easily supported the assessment. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides six (6) improved sales in Naples that offer almost no comparability to the subject's property type and location on Marco Island. Sales #1 is a former funeral home [2 buildings], Sale #2 ($117.02/SF) is a restaurant/bar, and Sale #3 ($119.49/SF) is a 3-building property (one appears to be a former IHOP). Sale #4 could perhaps offer some degree of comparability as it is a 9,500 SF former retail flooring building, but it was an REO sold by failed Colonial Bank for $105.26/SF. Sale #5 is located just off Tamiami Trail, and is a 9,570 SF 2-story building with 2nd floor offices. Sale #6 appears to be perhaps a little more comparable modern building at 9995 Tamiami Trail North that sold for $171.98/SF, while the subject is assessed at $201.06/SF. Because of limited data regarding the sales (such as lack of year built, traffic counts, maps, etc.), it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the PET's sales without the benefit of verbal testimony or better evidence in the record. The PET's entire presentation of three approaches is very disorganized, confusing, not reconciled, inconsistent, biased, and does not appear to appear to be prepared by a person with local Collier County knowledge. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. 4 Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00307 Parcel ID 56807840006 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 1800 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 408,959.00 408,959.00 408,959.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 408,959.00 408,959.00 408,959.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 408,959.00 408,959.00 408,959.00 *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 (See Attached) WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance by checking the box on the petition form. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence submitted. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00308 Parcel ID 81065000022 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 1565 AIRPORT RDS The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,180,612.00 2,180,612.00 2,180,612.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,157,352.00 2,157,352.00 2,157,352.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,157,352.00 2,157,352.00 2,157,352.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Derrick Dyslin) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Walgreens store built in 1999, located at 1565 Airport Road South in Naples (at the NE corner of Davis Boulevard and Airport Pulling Road). The subject has an adjusted building size of 30,585 SF situated upon a site of 86,249 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$2,180,612 (i.e. $136.89/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $185,707 of impact fees for a total of$1,910,687. The PAO notes that the land value alone is sufficient to support the entire assessment of$2,180,612. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,638,783), resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $3,549,470. The land value estimate was based upon the 11 land sale and `residual' indicators, with #2, #6, and #7 being close to the subject and very supportive of the $20/ SF figure when considering the subject's prime corner location at a busy intersection. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of commercial outparcel land indicators along comparable Airport Pulling Road. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO and I both give greatest weight to this approach, as it is typically not influenced by leases and it provides the best `fee simple' manner to analyze this property type. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 16 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in the State of Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, & other details relating to those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $450/SF of building area X 15,930 SF = $7,168,500 for the subject. The estimated price / SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, most (of all) of the sales are leased fee sales on long term net leases backed by corporate guarantees, not fee simple sales that would be more comparable and appropriate for the assessment process. For this reason, both the PAO & I do not give much weight to the PAO's improved Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$6,305,625 (rounded), based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 25% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$454,005. The PAO does not provide specific rent comparables for the subject; however, he does provide general market rental rate (and capitalization rate) norms for retail (and other) property types in Collier County, as well as other parts of SW Florida and compared to the entire State of Florida. The PAO does indirectly provides drug store leases in his exhibit of"Drug Store For Sale Listings", given asking prices and asking cap rates are provided. By doing the math by multiplying the two, the annual rent becomes evident (and that is without any deductions for vacancy or expenses by the way most of these `net lease' transactions are marketed. Thus, indirectly, the PAO's asking rent does appear within reason, but that is based upon other net least offering prices backed by corporate guarantees. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area and Cost Approach conclusion. However, the PAO's inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach are less reliable indicators, because they both tend to be high because of leased fee influences that are not consistent with the fee simple assessment process. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. The PET's evidence package for this hearing was mixed in with the evidence for multiple other petitions on this same hearing date, which makes it far more cumbersome to locate each petition's relevant evidence. It is the job of the PET to present a clear and organized evidence supportive for each individual petition, as they are heard and assessed independently. The PET fails to do this, and compounds the problem by not attending the hearing to provide verbal clarification. In the PET's Cost Approach, based upon a land value of$607,193, or $7.04/SF. It is very difficult to follow the PET's logic and data to support a figure that low. Furthermore, the PET fails to account for entrepreneurial profit, fails to account for impact fees (which are significant), fails to consider some of the PAO's timely land sale indicators from the subject's vicinity, and fails to consider some soft costs. These collective errors result in a total Cost Approach indication that is insufficient for serious consideration at this hearing. In reference to the PET's land value for this and related hearings from this petitioner, the PET provides an exhibit summarizing the various (6) subject petitions heard on this same date. The PET concludes a land value estimate between $7.04/SF to $7.47/SF (without impact fees), while only one of the land value estimates was higher at $15.76/SF (also without impact fees). These land values appear to be inconsistent with what a person familiar with the local Collier County market area would conclude. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET's exhibit indicates a value estimate of $2,149,238, which is almost supportive of the PAO's assessment of$2,180,612. The PET's Income Approach value is based upon a gross rental rate of$14/SF, 7% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves and a (high) market cap rate of 8.5%. The PET does not appear to provide much (if any) good market support for these inputs, particularly the OAR estimate. Had the PET used a more reasonable OAR estimate, the same set of(very conservative) inputs would have easily resulted in a value estimate that easily supports the assessment. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides six (6) improved sales that offer limited (at best) comparability to the subject's property type and busy corner location. Sales #1 is a former funeral home [2 buildings], Sale #2 is a restaurant/bar, and Sale #3 is a 3-building property (one appears to be a former IHOP). Sale #4 could perhaps offer some degree of comparability as it is a 9,500 SF former retail flooring building, but it was an REO sold by failed Colonial Bank for $105.26/SF. Sale #5 is located just off Tamiami Trail, and is a 9,570 SF 2-story building with 2nd floor offices. Sale #6 appears to be perhaps a more comparable modern building at 9995 Tamiami Trail North that sold for $171.98/SF, while the subject is assessed at $136.89/SF. Because of limited data regarding the sales (such as lack of year built, traffic counts, maps, etc.), it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the PET's sales without the benefit of verbal testimony or better evidence in the record. Again, PET's Sale #6 is a modern building that does appear to be supportive of the subject's assessment. The PET's entire presentation of three approaches is very disorganized, confusing, not reconciled, inconsistent, biased, and does not appear to appear to be prepared by a person with local Collier County knowledge. RULING: By providing three approaches with no merit worthy of serious consideration, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO does present a good and credible Cost Approach, which is a very good way to value this type of property on a fee simple basis. The PAO's land value (with impact fees that run with the land) is almost sufficient to support the entire assessment, yet the building value remains very significant, given the subject's apparent condition and age. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00309 Parcel ID 25368000028 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 12784 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,182,877.00 2,182,877.00 2,182,877.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,161,074.00 2,161,074.00 2,161,074.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,161,074.00 216,074.00 216,074.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaj ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Derrick Dyslin) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Walgreens store built in 1999, located at 12784 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. The subject is an outparcel in front of a Lowe's building supply store. The subject has an adjusted building size of 15,834 SF situated upon a site of 55,306 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$2,182,877 (i.e. $137.86/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $22/SF, plus $184,588 of impact fees for a total of$1,401,320. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,614,770), resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of$3,016,090. The land value estimate was based upon the 11 outparcel land sales, with #10, #2, and #13 being close to the subject and very supportive of the $22/SF figure. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of commercial outparcel land indicators along major traffic arteries in Collier County. The PAO does provid back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO and I both give greatest weight to this approach, as it is typically not influenced by leases and it provides the best `fee simple' manner to analyze this property type. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 16 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in the State of Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, & other details relating to those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $450/SF of building area X 15,834 SF = $7,125,300 for the subject. The estimated price/SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, most (if not all) of the sales are leased fee sales on long term net leases backed by corporate guarantees, and not fee simple sales that would be more comparable and appropriate for the assessment process. For this reason, both the PAO & I do not give much weight to the PAO's improved Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$6,267,625 (rounded), based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 25% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$451,269. The PAO does not provide specific rent comparables for the subject; however, he does provide general market rental rate (and capitalization rate) norms for retail (and other) property types in Collier County, as well as other parts of SW Florida and compared to the entire State of Florida. The PAO does indirectly provides drug store leases in his exhibit of"Drug Store For Sale Listings", given asking prices and asking cap rates are provided. By doing the math by multiplying the two, the annual rent becomes evident (and that is without any deductions for vacancy or expenses by the way most of these `net lease' transactions are marketed). Thus, indirectly, the PAO's asking rent does appear within reason, but that is based upon other net least offering prices backed by corporate guarantees. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area and Cost Approach conclusion. However, the PAO's inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach are less reliable indicators, because they both tend to be high because of leased fee influences that are not consistent with the fee simple assessment process. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. The PET's evidence package for this hearing was mixed in with the evidence for multiple other petitions on this same hearing date, which makes it far more cumbersome to locate each petition's relevant evidence. It is the job of the PET to present a clear and organized evidence supportive of each individual petition, as they are heard and assessed independently. The PET fails to do this, and compounds the problem by not attending the hearing to provide verbal clarification. In the PET's Cost Approach, he concludes a land value of$344,021, or $6.22/SF. It is very difficult to follow the PET's logic and data to support a figure that low. Furthermore, the PET fails to account for entrepreneurial profit, fails to account for impact fees (which are significant), fails to consider some of the PAO's timely land sale indicators from the subject's vicinity, and fails to consider some soft costs. These collective errors result in a total Cost Approach indication that is insufficient for serious consideration at this hearing. In reference to the PET's land value for this and related hearings from this petitioner, the PET provides an exhibit summarizing the various (6) subject petitions heard on this same date. The PET concludes land value estimates for these related hearings between $7.04/ SF to $7.47/SF (without impact fees), while only one of the land value estimates was higher at $15.76/SF (also without impact fees). These land values appear to be inconsistent with what a person familiar with the local Collier County market area would conclude for commercial outparcels and/or good commercial land parcels along busy traffic arteries. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET's exhibit indicates a value estimate of $2,136,286, which is almost supportive of the PAO's assessment of$2,182,877. The PET's Income Approach value is based upon a gross rental rate of$14/SF, 7% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves and a (high) market cap rate of 8.5%. The PET does not appear to provide much (if any) good market support for these inputs, particularly the OAR estimate. Had the PET used a more reasonable OAR estimate, the same set of(very conservative) inputs would have easily resulted in a value estimate that easily supports the assessment. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides six (6) improved sales that offer limited (at best) comparability to the subject's property type and busy corner location. Sales #1 is a former funeral home [2 buildings], Sale #2 ($117.02/SF) is a restaurant/bar, and Sale #3 ($119.49/SF) is a 3-building property (one appears to be a former IHOP). Sale #4 could perhaps offer some degree of comparability as it is a 9,500 SF former retail flooring building, but it was an REO sold by failed Colonial Bank for $105.26/SF. Sale #5 is located just off Tamiami Trail, and is a 9,570 SF 2-story building with 2nd floor offices. Sale #6 appears to be perhaps a more comparable modern building at 9995 Tamiami Trail North that sold for $171.98/SF, while the subject is assessed at $137.86/SF. Because of limited data regarding the sales (such as lack of year built, traffic counts, maps, etc.), it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the PET's sales without the benefit of verbal testimony or better evidence in the record. Again, PET's Sale #6 is a modern building that does appear to be supportive of the subject's assessment. Sales #1 and #2 (with proper adjustments) could also perhaps be supportive, but they are different building use types compared to the subject. The PET's entire presentation of three approaches is very disorganized, confusing, not reconciled, inconsistent, biased, and does not appear to appear to be prepared by a person with local Collier County knowledge. RULING: By providing three approaches with no merit worthy of serious consideration, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO does present a good and credible Cost Approach, which is a very good way to value this type of property on a fee simple basis. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00310 Parcel ID 56930880001 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 1100 COLLIER BLVDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,444,905.00 2,444,905.00 2,444,905.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,220,923.00 2,220,923.00 2,220,923.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,220,923.00 2,220,923.00 2,220,923.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 7J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Derrick Dyslin) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Walgreens store built in 2000, located at 1100 Collier Boulevard on Marco Island. The subject has an adjusted building size of 15,861 SF situated upon a site of 75,089 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$2,444,905 (i.e. $154.15/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF, plus $174,168 of impact fees for a total of$3,177,728. The PAO could have added the depreciated value of the improvements, resulting in an even higher Cost Approach estimate. The land value estimate was based upon the 12 land indicators (sales & `residuals'), along with 5 current listings. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of commercial land indicators along major traffic arteries on Marco Island. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO and I both give greatest weight to this approach, as it is typically not influenced by leases and it provides the best `fee simple' manner to analyze this property type. It is stressed that the PAO could have easily added more value justification to this approach by including the depreciated value of the structure built in 2000; however, the PAO did not need to do this to support the assessment in this particular case. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 16 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in the State of Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, & other details relating to those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $450/SF of building area X 15,861 SF = $7,137,450 for the subject. The estimated price/SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, most (if not all) of the sales are leased fee sales on long term net leases backed by corporate guarantees, and not fee simple sales that would be more comparable and appropriate for the assessment process. For this reason, both the PAO & I do not give much weight to the PAO's improved Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$6,278,306, based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 25% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of $452,038. The PAO does not provide specific rent comparables for the subject; however, he does provide general market rental rate (and capitalization rate) norms for retail (and other) property types in Collier County, as well as other parts of SW Florida and compared to the entire State of Florida. The PAO does indirectly provides drug store leases in his exhibit of"Drug Store For Sale Listings", given asking prices and asking cap rates are provided. By doing the math by multiplying the two, the annual rent becomes evident (and that is without any deductions for vacancy or expenses by the way most of these `net lease' transactions are marketed). Thus, indirectly, the PAO's asking rent does appear within reason, but that is based upon other net least offering prices backed by corporate guarantees. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area and Cost Approach conclusion. It is stressed that the PAO could have easily added more value justification to this approach by including the depreciated value of the structure built in 2000; however, the PAO did not need to do this to support the assessment in this particular case. However, the PAO's inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach are less reliable indicators, because they both tend to be high because of leased fee influences that are not consistent with the fee simple assessment process. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. The PET's evidence package for this hearing was mixed in with the evidence for multiple other petitions on this same hearing date, which makes it far more cumbersome to locate each petition's relevant evidence. It is the job of the PET to present clear and organized evidence supportive of each individual petition, as they are heard and assessed independently. The PET fails to do this, and compounds the problem by not attending the hearing to provide verbal clarification. In the PET's Cost Approach, he concludes a land value of$1,180,786, or $15.73/SF. It is very difficult to follow the PET's logic and data to support a figure that low after also reviewing the PAO's land sale and listing indicators within close proximity to the subject. Marco Island is a highly regarded island location with only a limited supply of commercial space. Furthermore in his Cost Approach, the PET fails to account for entrepreneurial profit, fails to account for impact fees (which are significant at $174,168), fails to consider some of the PAO's timely land sale indicators from the subject's vicinity, and fails to consider some soft costs. These collective errors result the PET's total Cost Approach indication of$2,430,906, which is insufficient for serious consideration at this hearing. However, that indicator is only $13,999 less than the subject's total assessment, so the inclusion of several missing items in the Cost Approach (and a more reasonable land value indicator) would have easily make the PET's Cost Approach highly supportive (and well in excess of) of the PAO's assessment. In reference to the PET's land value for this and related hearings from this petitioner, the PET provides an exhibit summarizing the various (6) subject petitions heard on this same date. The PET concludes land value estimates for these related hearings between $7.04/ SF to $7.47/SF (without impact fees), while only one of the land value estimates (for the subject on Marco Island) was higher at $15.73/SF (also without impact fees). These land values appear to be inconsistent with what a person familiar with the local Collier County market area would conclude for commercial outparcels and/or good commercial land parcels along busy traffic arteries. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET's exhibit indicates a value estimate of $2,296,113, which again is almost supportive of the PAO's assessment of$2,444,905. The PET's Income Approach value is based upon a gross rental rate of$15/SF, 7% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves and a (high) market cap rate of 8.5%. The PET does not appear to provide much (if any) good market support for these inputs, particularly the OAR estimate. Had the PET used a more reasonable OAR estimate, the same set of(very conservative) inputs would have easily resulted in a value estimate that easily supports the assessment. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides six (6) improved sales in Naples that offer almost no comparability to the subject's property type and location on Marco Island. Sales #1 is a former funeral home [2 buildings], Sale #2 ($117.02/SF) is a restaurant/bar, and Sale #3 ($119.49/SF) is a 3-building property (one appears to be a former IHOP). Sale #4 could perhaps offer some degree of comparability as it is a 9,500 SF former retail flooring building, but it was an REO sold by failed Colonial Bank for $105.26/SF. Sale #5 is located just off Tamiami Trail, and is a 9,570 SF 2-story building with 2nd floor offices. Sale #6 appears to be perhaps a little more comparable modern building at 9995 Tamiami Trail North that sold for $171.98/SF, while the subject is assessed at $137.86/SF. Because of limited data regarding the sales (such as lack of year built, traffic counts, maps, etc.), it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the PET's sales without the benefit of verbal testimony or better evidence in the record. Again, PET's Sale #6 ($171.98/SF) is a modern building that does appear to be supportive of the subject's assessment at $154.15/SF, even though it is not located on Marco Island. The PET's entire presentation of three approaches is very disorganized, confusing, not reconciled, inconsistent, biased, and does not appear to appear to be prepared by a person with local Collier County knowledge. RULING: By providing three approaches with no merit worthy of serious consideration, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO does present a good and credible Cost Approach, which is a very good way to value this type of property on a fee simple basis. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00311 Parcel ID 00168047002 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 950 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34108 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,135,184.00 1,135,184.00 1,135,184.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,135,184.00 1,135,184.00 1,135,184.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,135,184.00 1,135,184.00 1,135,184.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch & Ms. Jenny Blaje. These PAO officials were previously sworn in during a prior hearing on this date; however, it was not necessary for them to testify in this particular hearing. This is because the Petitioner failed to appear, failed to submit any evidence, and failed to check the non-attendance box on the petition form filed. The PET requested via email that their evidence be entertained, yet the PET did not submit any. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, did not submit any evidence for consideration, and did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. 1•;;* Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00312 Parcel ID 24825000041 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 12955 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,915,508.00 1,915,508.00 1,915,508.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,915,498.00 1,915,498.00 1,915,498.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,915,498.00 1,915,498.00 1,915,498.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch & Ms. Jenny Blaje. These PAO officials were previously sworn in during a prior hearing on this date; however, it was not necessary for them to testify in this particular hearing. This is because the Petitioner failed to appear, failed to submit any evidence, and failed to check the non-attendance box on the petition form filed. The PET submitted an email to the VAB staff indicating the PET had a scheduling conflict & could not attend. The PET wanted their evidenced considered, but there was non submitted. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, did not submit any evidence for consideration, and did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to the VAB staff indicating the PET had a scheduling conflict & could not attend. The PET wanted their evidenced considered, but there was non submitted. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00313 Parcel ID 57991000007 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 664 BALD EAGLEDR The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 8,091,177.00 8,091,177.00 8,091,177.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,443,822.00 7,443,822.00 7,443,822.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,443,822.00 7,443,822.00 7,443,822.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch & Ms. Jenny Blaje. These PAO officials were previously sworn in during a prior hearing on this date; however, it was not necessary for them to testify in this particular hearing. This is because the Petitioner failed to appear, failed to submit any evidence, and failed to check the non-attendance box on the petition form filed. The PET submitted an email to the VAB staff indicating the PET had a scheduling conflict & could not attend. The PET wanted their evidenced considered, but there was none submitted. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, did not submit any evidence for consideration, and did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to the VAB staff indicating the PET had a scheduling conflict & could not attend. The PET wanted their evidenced considered, but there was none submitted. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 • VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194,171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00314 Parcel ID 00145080008 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 1100 SUN CENTURY RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary 1,71 Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,106,255.00 1,106,255.00 1,106,255.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,106,255.00 1,106,255.00 1,106,255.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,106,255.00 1,106,255.00 1,106,255.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch & Ms. Jenny Blaje. These PAO officials were previously sworn in during a prior hearing on this date; however, it was not necessary for them to testify in this particular hearing. This is because the Petitioner failed to appear, failed to submit any evidence, and failed to check the non-attendance box on the petition form filed. The PET submitted an email to the VAB staff indicating the PET had a scheduling conflict & could not attend. The PET wanted their evidenced considered, but there was none submitted. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, did not submit any evidence for consideration, and did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to the VAB staff indicating the PET had a scheduling conflict & could not attend. The PET wanted their evidenced considered, but there was none submitted. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. • FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00318 Parcel ID 00236320004 Petitioner name DERRICK J. DYSLIN Property 7985 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 171 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,271,705.00 2,271,705.00 2,271,705.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,271,705.00 2,271,705.00 2,271,705.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,271,705.00 2,271,705.00 2,271,705.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Mr. Derrick Dyslin) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Walgreens store built in 2000, located at 7989 Airport Road North in Naples. The subject is an outparcel in the Olympia Park Shopping Center, and at the Southwest quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road North. The subject has an adjusted building size of 15,264 SF situated upon a site of 84,506 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$2,271,705 (i.e. $140.83/SF of building area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $22/SF, plus $189,086 of impact fees for a total of$2,048,218. The PAO goes on to add the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,612,082), resulting in his concluded Cost Approach estimate of $3,660,300. The land value estimate was based upon the 13 outparcel land sale indicators. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a good representation of the very good (but less than prime) commercial land indicators in Naples. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO and I both give greatest weight to this approach, as it is typically not influenced by leases and it provides the best `fee simple' manner to analyze this property type. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 16 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in the State of Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas, year built, & other details relating to those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $450/SF of building area X 15,264 SF = $6,868,800 for the subject. The estimated price/SF figure appears reasonable for the Naples location; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, most (if not all) of the sales are leased fee sales on long term net leases backed by corporate guarantees, and not fee simple sales that would be more comparable and appropriate for the assessment process. For this reason, both the PAO & I do not give much weight to the PAO's improved Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$6,042,000, based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 25% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of $435,024. The PAO does not provide specific rent comparables for the subject; however, he does provide general market rental rate (and capitalization rate) norms for retail (and other) property types in Collier County, as well as other parts of SW Florida and compared to the entire State of Florida. The PAO does indirectly provides drug store leases in his exhibit of"Drug Store For Sale Listings", given asking prices and asking cap rates are provided. By doing the math by multiplying the two, the annual rent becomes evident (and that is without any deductions for vacancy or expenses by the way most of these `net lease' transactions are marketed). Thus, indirectly, the PAO's asking rent does appear within reason, but that is based upon other net lease (i.e. leased fee not fee simple) offering prices backed by corporate guarantees. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area and by his Cost Approach conclusion. The PAO's inclusion of the Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach are less reliable indicators, because they both tend to be high because of lease influences that are not consistent with the fee simple assessment process. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did submit evidence (all three traditional approaches) for consideration. The PET's evidence package for this hearing was mixed in with the evidence for multiple other petitions on this same hearing date, which makes it far more cumbersome to locate each petition's relevant evidence. It is the job of the PET to present clear and organized evidence supportive of each individual petition, as they are heard and assessed independently. The PET fails to do this, and compounds the problem by not attending the hearing to provide verbal clarification. In the PET's Cost Approach, he concludes a land value of$631,260, or $7.47/SF. It is very difficult to follow the PET's logic and data to support a figure that low after also reviewing the PAO's land sale and listing indicators within close proximity to the subject & along the Tamiami Trail Corridor. Furthermore in his Cost Approach, the PET fails to account for entrepreneurial profit, fails to account for impact fees (which are significant at $189,086), fails to consider some of the PAO's timely land sale indicators from the subject's vicinity, and fails to consider some soft costs. These collective errors result the PET's total Cost Approach indication of$1,834,325, which is insufficient for serious consideration at this hearing. In reference to the PET's land value for this and related hearings from this petitioner, the PET provides an exhibit summarizing the various (6) subject petitions heard on this same date. The PET concludes land value estimates for these related hearings between $7.04/SF to $7.47/SF (without impact fees), while only one of the land value estimates (for the Walgreens on Marco Island) was higher at $15.73/SF (also without impact fees). These land values appear to be inconsistent with what a person familiar with the local Collier County market area would conclude for commercial outparcels and/or good commercial land parcels along busy traffic arteries. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET's exhibit indicates a value estimate of $2,059,383, which is slightly below of the PAO's assessment of$2,271,705. The PET's Income Approach value is based upon a gross rental rate of$14.00/SF, 7% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25/SF reserves and a (high) market cap rate of 8.5%. The PET does not appear to provide much (if any) good market support for these inputs, particularly the OAR estimate & freestanding retail store rents. Many of the PET's rent comparables are `in-line' shopping center bays, not freestanding stores at traffic-lighted intersections. Had the PET used a more reasonable OAR estimate & more appropriate/comparable rent comparbles, the resulting value with the remaining set of inputs would have easily supported the assessment. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides six (6) improved sales in Naples that offer almost no comparability to the subject's property type and location on Marco Island. Sales #1 is a former funeral home [2 buildings], Sale #2 ($117.02/SF) is a restaurant/bar, and Sale #3 ($119.49/SF) is a 3-building property (one appears to be a former IHOP). Sale #4 could perhaps offer some degree of comparability as it is a 9,500 SF former retail flooring building, but it was an REO sold by failed Colonial Bank for $105.26/SF. Sale #5 is located just off Tamiami Trail, and is a 9,570 SF 2-story building with 2nd floor offices. Sale #6 appears to be perhaps a more comparable modern building at 9995 Tamiami Trail North that sold for $171.98/SF, while the subject is assessed at $140.83/SF. Because of limited data regarding the sales (such as lack of year built, traffic counts, maps, etc.), it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the PET's sales without the benefit of verbal testimony or better evidence in the record. The PET's entire presentation of three approaches is very disorganized, confusing, not reconciled, inconsistent, biased, and does not appear to appear to be prepared by a person with local Collier County knowledge. RULING: By providing three approaches not worthy of serious consideration, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO does present a good and credible Cost Approach, which is a very good way to value this type of property on a fee simple basis. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D 16.ode ��, � Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier MI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036,194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00319 Parcel ID 63103320006 Petitioner name CATETE, MARIA DEL CARMEN Property 4937 CORTEZCIR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record El taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary l Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 141,151.00 141,151.00 141,151.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 114,212.00 114,212.00 114,212.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 114,212.00 114,212.00 114,212.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer ❑ 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 ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages,as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Davis Mazur Davis Mazur 10/16/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not indicate a desire to have her petition heard without her attendance by checking that box on the Petition. No good cause request is pending for Petitioner's failure to appear. Therefore, I am not permitted to commence or proceed with the hearing or produce a recommended decision. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D-9.021(6). Conclusions of Law: Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not indicate a desire to have her petition heard without her attendance by checking that box on the Petition. No good cause request is pending for Petitioner's failure to appear. Therefore, I am not permitted to commence or proceed with the hearing or produce a recommended decision. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D-9.021(6). FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule Ad ministrative 16 Code .�/� Florida Administrative Code .. .+ Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036, 194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00320 Parcel ID 38056180001 Petitioner name WAYNE F KORN TRUST Property 3161 29THAVE SW The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34117 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 288,990.00 288,990.00 288,990.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 288,990.00 288,990.00 288,990.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 238,990.00 238,990.00 238,990.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer ❑ Homestead ❑Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran 17 Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify 0 Transfer of homestead assessment difference ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/22/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: This is a petition for denial of a senior exemption and the transfer of Save Our Homes assessment difference from one owner to another owner of property located at 3161 29th Avenue SW, Naples, Florida. The Petitioner is Wayne Korn who personally appeared at the hearing. The Property Appraiser was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director Exemptiosn Department and Jennifer Earle, Homestead Exemption Department. All persons were sworn in. The Property Appraiser ("PA") agreed with the Petitioner the he was entitled to a senior exemption and this portion of the petition was settled by the parties. Therefore no recommendation as to that portion of the petition will be issued. The PA offered its evidence package consisting of 18 pages, which was admitted without objection as PA Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner offered no evidence other than his testimony. Petitioner owned the subject property with his girlfriend, Maria Deivs aka Maria Molter. Title to the property was held by both of them as joint tenants with rights of survivorship up until 2014. Ms. Molter appiled for and received a homestead exemption for the property in 2006. At this time Mr. Korn still enjoyed his homestead exemption on property he owned at 1105 Gayer Way, #201, Marco Island, Florida. (PA 1, p.10) The Gayer Way property was sold in May, 2010, and Korn lost his exemption at that time. (PA 1, p.12-14) On October 13, 2014, Petitioner and Ms. Moulter conveyed their interest in the property to the Wayne F. Korn Trust for estate planning purposes. (Korn; PA 1, p.15) Ms. Moulter's interest terminated at that time as she had no interest under the terms of the trust. (Korn) On December 15, 2014, Mr. Korn applied for the 2015 homestead exemption on behalf of the Wayne F. Korn Trust and received the exemption. (PA 1, p.17; Ybaceta) Conclusions of Law: Article VII, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution establishes what is now commonly known as the Save Our Homes cap, a limitation on the annual assessed value for homestead property of 3% or the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. Section 4(c), Art. VII, specifically states that new homestead property shall be assessed at just value as of January 1st of the year "following the establishment of the homestead. That assessment shall only change as provided herein." Thereafter, as long as the property enjoys its status of homestead and there is no change in ownership, it is entitled to the cap. Section 193.155, Fla. Stat., was enacted in 1994 to implement this constitutional provision. Subsection (3)(a) states that "property assessed under this section shall be assessed at just value as of January 1 of the year following a change of ownership." Consequently, when the property changes hands it will lose the Save Our Home ("SOH") cap unless the transfer does not constitute a change of ownership under the exceptions spelled out in the statute. In the instant case, the property was transferred from Wayne Korn and Maria Moulter to the Wayne F. Korn Trust in 2014. The Trust has qualified for and been granted a homestead exemption for 2015. Absent the relationship between Wayne Korn and the Wayne F. Korn Trust (hereinafter "Trust"), and the prior ownership of the property by Korn, as joint tenant, this would be a simple matter of finding that the transfer of ownership triggered a new assessment of the property and a loss of the SOH assessment difference. However, the statute recognizes that a transfer between an individual and a trust in which the same individual is a beneficiary does not constitute a change in ownership. Section 193.155(3)(a)(2) clearly excludes a transfer where, subsequent to the change, "the same person is entitled to the homestead as was previously entitled" and the transfer is between legal and equitable title. The statute uses the words "entitled to the homestead exemption," not "received." The question therefore is whether Wayne Korn is "entitled to the homestead exemption" by virtue of having qualified for a homestead exemption and therefore meets this definitional exclusion. In this case Wayne Korn has been a joint owner of the property since it was granted its exemption in 2006. (PA 1, p.8; Korn)) However, he did not make the property his primary residence until 2010 when he sold his home on Gayer Way and abandoned the homestead exemption for that property. (Korn; PA 1, p.12) Although the subject property enjoyed a homestead exemption, this exemption was granted to Maria Moulter based on her residency, not Wayne Korn. (PA 1, p. 11) Mr. Korn and Ms. Moulter were not married. (Korn) Although Wayne Korn met the ownership and residency requirements for a homestead exemption in his own right, he had not applied for nor been granted an exemption. The Florida Supreme Court in Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2004) considered this question. In Zingale, the homeowners sought to retroactively establish their Save Our Homes cap on property that was "entitled" to the homestead exemption but had not received it due to the taxpayers' failure to apply. Having sought to retroactively apply for homestead, the Powells argued the very language at issue here, namely, that they were "entitled" to the homestead exemption and had established their homestead by meeting the residency and ownership requirements. (In fact, the Powells were granted an exemption in 2001, but sought to establish their SOH cap in 2001.) The Court held that the language in Article VII, Section 4(c), of the Florida Constitution requires that the taxpayer "establish" homestead by applying for and receiving the exemption. Then and only then is the baseline established and the Save Our Homes cap thereafter applied. Therefore, any taxpayer seeking the assessment cap must be "granted" the homestead exemption. It is not enough that the taxpayer otherwise qualifies for the exemption on grounds of ownership and residency. This outcome would have been different if Korn and Moulter were husband and wife, as recent authority has concluded that a surviving spouse is entitled to enjoy and inherit the SOH assessment difference upon the death of the applicant spouse. Kelly v. Spain, 160 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding to establish that the Property Appraiser's decision not to transfer the homestead assessment difference to the Trust was wrong. The credible and relevant evidence was not sufficient to meet this burden. To the contrary, the evidence showed that ownership did in fact change, thereby triggering a new baseline for the Save Our Homes Cap. It is therefore this Special Magistrate's recommendation that the petition be denied. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00322 Parcel ID 50031320000 Petitioner name CASEY WEIDENMILLER Property 152 BEACH DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary El Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 9,096,884.00 9,096,884.00 9,096,884.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,596,884.00 8,596,884.00 8,596,884.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 8,546,884.00 8,546,884.00 8,546,884.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/05/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaj ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties , Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Ms. Bridgette Willauer, Esq. with the law firm Wood, Weidenmiller, Michetti, & Rudnick. Ms. Willauer's certified general appraiser witnesses providing testimony at this hearing were Mr. Nelson P. Taylor and Mr. Andrew D. Anderson (stated to be an Appraisal Institute candidate) both with Hanson Real Estate Advisors, Inc. [Note: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson both were acknowledged as assisting `in the development of the appraisal report' in the certification to the appraisal in evidence prepared by Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI. However, Mr. Hanson did not attend the hearing. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson [both certified general appraisers in the State of Florida] appeared to testify to the "Restricted Appraisal Report" they both participated in preparing. It is also noted that Mr. Hanson, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Anderson DID NOT inspect the subject, as is also stated in the `restricted' appraisal report. All parties present were sworn in at this hearing. This was the Petitioner's first of 3 hearings on this same hearing date. The PET was explained the evidence exchange process, as well as the VAB hearing process in general terms. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a new custom single family home built in 2014, and it is situated directly facing the Gulf of Mexico on Marco Island. It is located at 152 South Beach Drive in a gated subdivision known as "Hideaway Beach", which is also a golf course community. The adjusted building size is 8,550 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$9,096,884. The last sale of the subject was for its lot value in June 2011 for $3M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch of its 3 floors, front/rear/pool/view photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The owner has a homestead exemption for 2015. During the course of the hearing, I also accepted rebuttal evidence from the PAO. It was a deed for PET's Sale #1, indicating that transfer was for a 27/38 interest, not a 100% of all rights associated with the property. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $55,000/front foot (FF) X 140.02 FF X a factor of.082, for a land value conclusion of$6,314,902. City & county impact fees are additional costs to the lot in the amount of$19,687, and impact fees `run with the land'. The PAO provides 2 lot sales, plus 3 `residual' land value indicators. Residuals are improved sales; whereby, the PAO deducts the assessed portion of the improvements from the actual sales price for an indication of the land value. The PAO's land sale #1 closed in 2/2015, but went to contract on 12/22/2014, per testimony. The PAO adds site improvements $35,000 for driveways, landscaping, etc.) and the (slightly) depreciated value of the improvements ($3,361,805) for a total Cost Approach estimate of $9,731,394. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 3 improved sales (2 in 2013 & 1 in 2014) and 1 listing on Marco Island. All of the PAO's Marco Island comparables have direct Gulf exposure. Sales #1-#3 and Listing #4 are all located within the same PUD as the subject's. The PAO also included 2 improved sales from Naples that closed during 2014, but the PAO does not give any weight to these two Naples sales. The PAO derives $/SF of adjusted area indicators for each of his sales and the one listing. The PAO gives most weight to $1,200/SF X 8,550 adjusted SF = $10,260,000 as his Sales Comparison Approach conclusion in support of the subject's $9,096,884 just value being contested. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided a late evidence submittal into the record. The evidence was submitted within 14 days of the hearing, in lieu of the normal 15-day period. I deem the evidence is admissible, given it is not so complex or lengthy that it would preclude the PAO from reviewing it timely. The subject is a single family home and the PAO customarily is able to review similar evidence in the normal course of business without undue delay. In fairness to the PET, the evidence will be entertained. The failure to submit timely evidence only precludes the PET from the evidence exchange process in advance of the hearing. It is within my discretion to entertain the evidence, or possibly extend (reschedule) the hearing date in some cases. The PET was already granted (apparently) two or three prior extensions, as the PET was delayed by waiting for the delivery of the appraisal of the subject to be completed. The law firm of Wood, Weidenmiller, Michetti, & Rudnic (Petitioner) retained Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI CRE, CCIM, FRICS (certified general appraiser #1003) to appraise the subject retrospectively, as of the assessment date of 1/1/2015. Mr. Hanson did so, and his "RESTRICTED" appraisal clearly states on page 5 of that report that, "It is the Appraiser's intent that the Report only be used for litigation (ad valorem assessments) purposes and for no other use (the Intended Use)." In other words, the appraiser (Mr. Hanson) is well aware that his report is going to be presented to a THIRD PARTY, which is the VAB in this case. Based upon my verification with a national USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices) instructor, this is a `cut and dry' violation of USPAP, which is the standard to which Mr. Hanson is obligated by law to honor. The RESTRICTED appraisal report prepared by Mr. Hanson uses 4 improved sales all from the subject's subdivision. In reference to his Sale #1, I accepted rebuttal evidence from the PAO. It was a deed for PET's Sale #1, indicating that transfer was for a 27/38 interest, not a 100% of all rights associated with the property. This discredits the use of PET's sale #1. Furthermore, the PAO indicates that this particular sale is NOT directly accessible by car to the PUD's clubhouse without first going outside of the secured gate, and then circling around to get back to the secured entrance that gets back to the clubhouse. Mr. Hanson's report failed to acknowledge this significant difference. The appraisers present were unaware of this condition. Mr. Stephens asks the question to the appraisers as to how they could make adjustments to comparable properties that they had never seen (and given they had not seen the subject). Mr. Hanson's sale #2 is also used by the PAO, which had a purchase price of$6.4M, but Mr. Hanson fails to make any adjustments to provide a meaningful indicator for the subject, even though it is 8 years older than the subject and 1,766 SF smaller (in livable size, not adjusted size). It also has 80 FF, compared to the subject's 140 FF of view frontage. Mr. Hanson's sale #3 closed in March 2015, which was 3 months after the assessment date. Its livable (not adjusted) area is only 55% of the subject's livable size. It is 25 years older than the subject and it has 55 FF less of a view. There are no visible adjustments applied that might result in a meaningful value indicator for the subject. Because this sale closed well after the assessment date, it would not have been known to the PAO on the assessment date; therefore, it is questionable if it should have been used at all for the purposes of a VAB hearing with a 1/1/2015 assessment date. There was no verification of the contract date provided. Mr. Hanson's sale #4 closed in June 2015, which was 6 months after the assessment date. Its livable (not adjusted) area is only 52.6% of the subject's livable size. It is 23 years older than the subject and it has 50 FF less of a view. There are no visible adjustments applied that might result in a meaningful value indicator for the subject. Because this sale closed well after the assessment date, it would not have been known to the PAO on the assessment date; therefore, it is doubtful if it should have been used at all for the purposes of a VAB hearing with a 1/1/2015 assessment date. There was no verification of the contract date provided, but most residential transactions do not take 6 months to close beyond the contract date. This sale was actually the PAO's listing #4 for $5.85M, which was in fact a listing on the assessment date, not a sale. The PAO did also use it though, & did acknowledge it was not a listing until 1/8/2015. In summary of Mr. Hanson's 4 improved sales, Sale #1 should not have been used at all, and his sales #3 and #4 both closed well after the assessment date & probably should also have not been included in this report. This leaves only his Sale #2, yet there are no meaningful adjustments applied to follow Mr. Hanson's logic to determine how he arrived at the $1,000/SF (of livable area) he uses to conclude a value of$6.87M. The PAO questioned the appraisers present regarding the adjustment process, and it was stated the logic for their adjustments was in their work file, yet it was not in the report nor provided to anyone at the hearing. Mr. Anderson (who participated in the preparation of the appraisal & was at the hearing to testify) stated he had never done an appraisal on Marco Island before. Given the subject is just one year old, one would think Mr. Hanson's report would have at least considered a Cost Approach and/or analysis of the new improvements and possibly value of the building permits, etc. This is fresh information readily available, along with the general contractor's actual costs. Marshall Valuation Services also publishes cost data, as Mr. Hanson is well aware. Mr. Anderson testified that the subject's superior/high quality finishes constitute `functional obsolescence' when answering Mr. Wood's question as to why he did not use the Cost Approach. Mr. Anderson tried to argue that cost does not equal value, even though the subject is new construction. Mr. Anderson apparently thinks people customarily spend $3M on a lot, then many millions more on vertical construction only to be satisfied with mediocre finishes. This would seem to defy logic and knowledge of appraising newer high end residential homes. Mr. Anderson was not aware of the subject's actual construction costs when questioned by Mr. Wood. While this ruling is not intended to be a Standard 3 appraisal review, the quality of work product for this `high end' and almost brand new residential home does not appear to meet the level of work product exhibited by the normal residential appraisal reports presented at these types of hearings. The subject is not part of a `tract housing' development with a low value. This subject is among the top tier of housing in Collier County. The methodology, presentation, logic, and reasoning should have been on par with the work product provided by experienced appraisers in the local market. This does not appear to have been done. Furthermore, the report fails to comply with USPAP, given its intended use was for a 3rd party (the VAB process). This discredits the PET's entire presentation. RULING: The PET provides a written RESTRICTED appraisal report that constitutes a violation to Florida law, given it was the intent of that report to be used by a 3rd party. The appraisal report clearly states he (Mr. Hanson) was aware the appraisal was to be used for ad valorem purposes (i.e. this VAB appeal). The problem is compounded by the appearance and testimony of both Mr. Nelson P. Taylor and Mr. Andrew D. Anderson, both affiliated with Hanson Real Estate Advisors, Inc. [Note: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson both were acknowledged as assisting `in the development of the appraisal report' in the certification to the appraisal in evidence prepared by Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI. However, Mr. Hanson did not attend the hearing. It is also noted that Mr. Hanson, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Anderson DID NOT inspect the appeal of this property (in excess of$9M), as is also stated in the `restricted' appraisal report. Because the appraisal report submitted into evidence at this hearing is DISCREDITED for not being compliant with USPAP (and FL law), the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00323 Parcel ID 17210880003 Petitioner name CASEY WEIDENMILLER Property 525 KINGS TOWNDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 12] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,687,322.00 4,687,322.00 4,687,322.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,562,120.00 3,562,120.00 3,562,120.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,562,120.00 3,562,120.00 3,562,120.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/05/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Ms. Bridgette Willauer, Esq. with the law firm Wood, Weidenmiller, Michetti, & Rudnick. Ms. Willauer's certified general appraiser witnesses providing testimony at this hearing were Mr. Nelson P. Taylor and Mr. Andrew D. Anderson both with Hanson Real Estate Advisors, Inc. [Note: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson both were acknowledged as assisting `in the development of the appraisal report' in the certification to the appraisal in evidence prepared by Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI. However, Mr. Hanson did not attend the hearing. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson [both certified general appraisers in the State of Florida] appeared to testify to the "Restricted Appraisal Report" they both participated in preparing. It is also noted that Mr. Hanson, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Anderson DID NOT inspect the subject, as is also stated in the `restricted' appraisal report. All parties present were sworn in at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1973, and it is situated upon an interior navigable canal lot in the Port Royal Subdivision. The subject has no fixed bridge access to the Gulf of Mexico via Gordon Pass. It is located at 525 Kings Town Drive in Naples. The adjusted building size is 4,136 SF. The subject has a 3-car garage, no pool, but it does have a dock. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$4,687,322. The subject previously was purchased by the Petitioner on in April 2012 for $3.6M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The subject does not have a homestead exemption. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $51,000/front foot (FF) X 96.9 FF X a factor of 1.06, for a land value conclusion of$5,238,414. Impact fees are inherently included in this value, given the prior home that was upon that comparable lot. Impact fees run with the land. The PAO provides 1 land sale [a TRUE LAND SALE, not with a home already in place], which was just 5 lots north of the subject with a fairly similar view of the water. That sale had 141.16 FF, and it sold for $8.2M, or $51,866/FF, which is supportive of the PAO's conclusion. The PAO then adds site improvements $20,000 for driveways, landscaping, etc.) and the depreciated value of the improvements ($167,906) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$5,426,320. The PAO applies 30% depreciation to the main home improvements, pool, and pool deck, which are all 42 years old. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 7 improved sales that all closed during 2014 from the immediate neighborhood. All are located on interior waterfront lots with `no fixed bridge' Gulf of Mexico access. Of the 7 improved sales, Sale #3 and Sale #5 are significantly newer/superior homes; thus, given less consideration. Regardless, the PAO derives $/SF of adjusted area indicators for each of his sales, and the PAO gives most weight to $1,350/SF X 4,136 adjusted SF = $5,583,600 as his Sales Comparison Approach conclusion in support of the subject's $4,687,322 just value being contested. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided a late evidence submittal into the record. The evidence was submitted within 14 days of the hearing, in lieu of the normal 15-day period. I deem the evidence is admissible, given it is not so complex or lengthy that it would preclude the PAO from reviewing it timely. The subject is a single family home and the PAO customarily is able to review similar evidence in the normal course of business without undue delay. In fairness to the PET, the evidence will be entertained. The failure to submit timely evidence only precludes the PET from the evidence exchange process in advance of the hearing. It is within my discretion to entertain the evidence, or possibly extend (reschedule) the hearing date in some cases. The PET was already granted (apparently) two prior extensions, as the PET was delayed by waiting for the delivery of the appraisal of the subject to be completed. The law firm of Wood, Weidenmiller, Michetti, & Rudnic (Petitioner) retained Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI CRE, CCIM, FRICS (certified general appraiser #1003) to appraise the subject retrospectively, as of the assessment date of 1/1/2015. Mr. Hanson did so, and his "RESTRICTED" appraisal. It clearly states on page 5 of that report that, "It is the Appraiser's intent that the Report only be used for litigation (ad valorem assessments) purposes and for no other use (the Intended Use)." In other words, the appraiser (Mr. Hanson) is well aware that his report is going to be presented to a THIRD PARTY, which is the VAB in this case. Based upon my verification with a national USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices) instructor, this is a `cut and dry' violation of USPAP, which is the standard to which Mr. Hanson is obligated to honor. RULING: The PET provides a written RESTRICTED appraisal report that constitutes a violation to Florida law, given it was the intent of that report to be used by a 3rd party. The appraisal report clearly states he (Mr. Hanson) was aware the appraisal was to be used for ad valorem purposes (i.e. this VAB appeal). The problem is compounded by the appearance and testimony of both Mr. Nelson P. Taylor and Mr. Andrew D. Anderson, both affiliated with Hanson Real Estate Advisors, Inc. [Note: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson both were acknowledged as assisting `in the development of the appraisal report' in the certification to the appraisal in evidence prepared by Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI. However, Mr. Hanson did not attend the hearing. It is also noted that Mr. Hanson, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Anderson DID NOT inspect the subject, as is also stated in the `restricted' appraisal report. Some of the statements at the hearing by Mr. Andrews and Mr. Taylor in defense of the value conclusion they contributed to preparing are rather remarkable, in the sense they did not even inspect the subject (and apparently the comparable properties either at the time they assisted in the preparation of the report). I do not understand how an appraiser can conclusively testify to `demolition' as the highest and best use of a given subject property (as stated on page 11 in the adjustment grid, as well as on page 10), unless the appraiser has personally been to the property to inspect it. I also do not understand why the appraisal report fails to at least consider the PAO's TRUE LAND SALE located just 5 lots north of the subject, particularly since it has a wider waterway view (similar the subject's) and given it was a June 2014 sale; whereas, all 4 IMPROVED sales used by Mr. Hanson apparently closed in February 2014. Most of the PET's comparables also have a narrow canal view (as shown in his map on page 10). The PAO also questions this aspect, with regard to the ability to turn around a larger vessel, given many of the buyers of these properties are boaters. The PAO goes on to note they have a disclaimer on their web site regarding square foot and front foot lot sizes that were erroneously used by Mr. Hanson's office. Mr. Stephens notes the Mr. Hanson's comparison grid has the subject's SF reported as 20,037 (when it is actually 20,473 SF), and the grid has numerous other errors with regard to SF and FF for the comparable sales. Sale 2 actually has 162.77 FF (per the plat) on the water, not 127.4 FF. Sale #4 was an estate sale (a disqualified sale by DOR standards). These are some of the various technical appraisal issues brought up by the PAO representatives during the course of the hearing. (NOTE: This ruling is NOT intended to be a Standard 3 appraisal review of the appraisal in the record. This ruling is simply a ruling and discussion of comments on the record during the recorded hearing.) Because the appraisal report submitted into evidence at this hearing is DISCREDITED for not being compliant with USPAP (and FL law), the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. J Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00324 Parcel ID 19247500202 Petitioner name CASEY WEIDENMILLER Property 1330 GULF SHOREBLVDS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,163,377.00 5,163,377.00 5,163,377.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,163,377.00 5,163,377.00 5,163,377.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,113,377.00 5,113,377.00 5,113,377.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/05/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Ms. Bridgette Willauer, Esq. with the law firm Wood, Weidenmiller, Michetti, & Rudnick. Ms. Willauer's certified general appraiser witnesses providing testimony at this hearing were Mr. Nelson P. Taylor and Mr. Andrew D. Anderson (stated to be an Appraisal Institute candidate) both with Hanson Real Estate Advisors, Inc. [Note: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson both were acknowledged as assisting `in the development of the appraisal report' in the certification to the appraisal in evidence prepared by Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI. However, Mr. Hanson did not attend the hearing. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson [both certified general appraisers in the State of Florida] appeared to testify to the "Restricted Appraisal Report" they both participated in preparing. It is also noted that Mr. Hanson, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Anderson DID NOT inspect the subject, as is also stated in the `restricted' appraisal report. This was the Petitioner's 3rd hearing on this same hearing date. The PET was previously explained the evidence exchange process (during petition TP-322), as well as the VAB hearing process in general terms. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a modern single family home built in 2003, and it is situated a half block from the Gulf of Mexico in Naples,just a block and a half south of the Naples Pier. It is located at 1330 Gulf Shore Boulevard in the "Sea Villa" subdivision. The adjusted building size is 6,372 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$5,163,377. The last sale of the subject was in February 2004 for $3.085M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch of its 2 floors, front/rear/pool/spa/view photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The owner has a homestead exemption for 2015. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $41,500/front foot (FF) X 80 FF X a factor of 1.02, for a land value conclusion of$3,386,400. Impact fees are inherent in that figure, given the land value was derived from improved properties via a `residual' process. Impact fees `run with the land'. The PAO provides 4 `residual' land value indicators (i.e. they are 4 of his 7 improved sales). Residuals are improved sales; whereby, the PAO deducts the assessed portion of the improvements from the actual sales price for an indication of the land value. The PAO adds site improvements $40,000 for driveways, landscaping, etc.) and the depreciated value of the improvements ($2,078,897) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$5,505,297. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 7 improved sales (all closed in 2014). The PAO derives $/SF of adjusted area indicators for each of his sales, & he gives most weight to $900/SF X 6,372 adjusted SF = $5,735,000 as his Sales Comparison Approach conclusion in support of the subject's $5,163,377 `just value' being contested. Six of the PAO's 7 sales are located directly on Gulf Shore Boulevard (like the subject), while only Sale #2 is slightly west of Gulf Shore Boulevard by one lot. This means that all the PAO's comparable sales are within very similar walking distance proximity to the sand of the Gulf of Mexico. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness. The Petitioner (PET) provided a late evidence submittal into the record. The evidence was submitted within 14 days of the hearing, in lieu of the normal 15-day period. I deem the evidence is admissible, given it is not so complex or lengthy that it would preclude the PAO from reviewing it timely. The subject is a single family home and the PAO customarily is able to review similar evidence in the normal course of business without undue delay. In fairness to the PET, the evidence will be entertained. The failure to submit timely evidence only precludes the PET from the evidence exchange process in advance of the hearing. It is within my discretion to entertain the evidence, or possibly extend (reschedule) the hearing date in some cases. The PET was already granted (apparently) two or three prior extensions, as the PET was delayed by waiting for the delivery of the subject's appraisal to be completed. The law firm of Wood, Weidenmiller, Michetti, & Rudnic (Petitioner) retained Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI CRE, CCIM, FRICS (certified general appraiser #1003) to appraise the subject retrospectively, as of the assessment date of 1/1/2015. Mr. Hanson did so, and his "RESTRICTED" appraisal. It clearly states on page 5 of that report that, "It is the Appraiser's intent that the Report only be used for litigation (ad valorem assessments) purposes and for no other use (the Intended Use)." In other words, the appraiser (Mr. Hanson) is well aware that his report is going to be presented to a THIRD PARTY, which is the VAB in this case. Based upon my verification with a national USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices) instructor, this is a `cut and dry' violation of USPAP, which is the standard to which Mr. Hanson is obligated by law to honor. The RESTRICTED appraisal report prepared by Mr. Hanson uses 3 improved sales Mr. Hanson's sale #1 is the PAO's Sale #4, while Mr. Hanson's sale #3 is the PAO's Sale #5. PET's Sale #2 is an older home built in 1989. All 3 of the PET's sales are on the EAST side of Gulf Shore Boulevard, while the PAO's sales are a mix on both sides. Given the subject is on the west side, there is a noticeable value difference of sales on the west side that tend to be higher. Thus, the PET's use of east side sales tends to skew the resulting value indicator, particularly since the PET does not make any adjustments evident in his conclusion of$700/SF applied to the livable square footage. The PET could have (but failed to) use any comparable sales during 2014 that he could have used. The PAO's sales grid provides examples of several in fairly close proximity worthy of consideration, given the subject is also on the west side of Gulf Shore Boulevard. The PET does not provide a Cost Approach (thus no land value indicator in the report), even though land values in this neighborhood are extremely high, given the very close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. RULING: The PET provides a written RESTRICTED appraisal report that constitutes a violation to Florida law, given it was the intent of that report to be used by a 3rd party. The appraisal report clearly states he (Mr. Hanson) was aware the appraisal was to be used for ad valorem purposes (i.e. this VAB appeal). The problem is compounded by the appearance and testimony of both Mr. Nelson P. Taylor and Mr. Andrew D. Anderson, both affiliated with Hanson Real Estate Advisors, Inc. [Note: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson both were acknowledged as assisting `in the development of the appraisal report' in the certification to the appraisal in evidence prepared by Mr. Woodward S. Hanson, MAI. However, Mr. Hanson did not attend the hearing. It is also noted that Mr. Hanson, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Anderson DID NOT inspect the appeal of this property (in excess of$5M), as is also stated in the `restricted' appraisal report. Because the appraisal report submitted into evidence at this hearing is DISCREDITED for not being compliant with USPAP (and FL law), the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002, F.A.C. ` Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00328 Parcel ID 13033120009 Petitioner name EISENACHER, MARK A ALMA M Property 686 ANCHOR RODE DR The petitioner is: WI taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,037,025.00 1,037,025.00 1,037,025.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,037,025.00 1,037,025.00 1,037,025.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 987,025.00 987,025.00 987,025.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fiii-In flei is viii ex.:ai'o or add paces, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/29/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/29/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiagt ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. Mark Eisenacher (also the owner). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 2-story single family home built in 1969, and it is located on a dry, interior lot of 0.35 acres within the Moorings subdivision. It is located at 686 Anchor Rode Drive in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 3,757 SF. The subject has a screen-enclosed rear pool/spa/patio. The PET was originally contesting the PAO's just value of$1,037,025. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool/patio photographs, comparable improved/land sales location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The PAO notes the subject recently sold for $1,360,000 on 6/6/2014. The contract for sale and the resulting deed for this recent sale of the subject has been provided in the PET's evidence. The PAO's contested just value equates to 76.3% of that recent purchase price. At the hearing, I accepted some additional evidence from the PAO (i.e. the subject's MLS listing with pictures, descriptions, and the subject's listing history). In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $8,500/front foot (FF) X a factor of 1.02 for a lot value of$823,650, which is inclusive of impact fees that run with the land. The PAO provides 7 land sale indicators. The PAO adds $15,000 in site improvements, as well as the depreciated value of the improvements ($317,542). The resulting total Cost Approach estimate is $1,156,192. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 comparable improved sales (plus the subject's recent sale). All comparable sales are from the immediate neighborhood & within a 3-block radius of the subject. All 5 comparables are located on dry lots, and all were originally built between 1969-1978. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$1,145,000. It is noted the subject was listed for $1.645M in MLS, per the brochure accepted from the PAO at the hearing. According to the listing history, the subject was originally listed for $1.725M in 7/2013. From the pictures provided in the listing, the subject shows extremely well and "has been entirely renovated to afford the ultimate in Naples living," with two fireplaces custom millwork, gas range, wine cooler, lush landscaping, new appliance package, etc. It would appear the subject had ample market exposure and was marketed through normal marketing channels. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at the hearing by his evidence and testimony. The Petitioner (PET) provides information related to the possible under-assessment of one property in his neighborhood that sold for more than the subject, but apparently is now assessed for less than the subject. Mr. Stephens notes the PAO did not include that sale in his analysis, as that sale was apparently NOT in MLS and was an unqualified sale. RULING: In the PAO's grid and summary of evidence, he considers the subject's effective age to be 1995; however, from the pictures and descriptions in the listing, it would appear to be even newer in effective age. The PET also notes the subject has strong appeal for being large, relative to most of the older sales that exist in the neighborhood. I give greatest weight to the recent sale of the subject for $1.36M, and not the PAO's Cost Approach or Sales Comparison Approach conclusions, as they fail to adequately address the subject's condition/appeal. The subject had ample market exposure, was in MLS, and the PET indicates the subject `appraised out' and he obtained a loan sufficient to close the sale with his down payment provided. The PET does not provide any `market' evidence whatsoever to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The PET's main argument was based upon the sale (and subsequent 2015 assessment) of one home in the neighborhood at 530 Anchor Drive (that very well may be under assessed). The under-assessment of just one home in the neighborhood is not justification to under-assess the subject. It is recommended to uphold the PAO's assessment of$1,037,025 should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. WI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00335 Parcel ID 85000231344 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 4910 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. • 1. Just value, required 261,531.00 261,531.00 261,531.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 261,531.00 261,531.00 261,531.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 236,531.00 236,531.00 236,531.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 17I These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00336 Parcel ID 85000267156 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 4320 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 298,788.00 298,788.00 298,788.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 298,788.00 298,788.00 298,788.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 273,788.00 273,788.00 273,788.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian LI Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00337 Parcel ID 85000692682 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 9975 TRIANGLE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 572,114.00 572,114.00 572,114.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 572,114.00 572,114.00 572,114.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 547,114.00 547,114.00 547,114.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00338 Parcel ID 85000639564 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 1500 5TH AVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IZ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 476,808.00 476,808.00 476,808.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 476,808.00 476,808.00 476,808.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 451,808.00 451,808.00 451,808.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.coliierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00339 Parcel ID 85000559741 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 8985 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z1 Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 366,509.00 366,509.00 366,509.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 366,509.00 366,509.00 366,509.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 341,509.00 341,509.00 341,509.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier of REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 2] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00340 Parcel ID 85000600603 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 12631 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 431,822.00 431,822.00 431,822.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 431,822.00 431,822.00 431,822.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 406,822.00 406,822.00 406,822.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D 16.ode �� Florida Administrative Code .. . Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier p These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00341 Parcel ID 66282280006 Petitioner name SHERMAN, LESLIE A Property 701 BOBWHITELN The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other,explain: Decision Summary 12] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 872,274.00 872,274.00 872,274.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 872,274.00 872,274.00 872,274.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 872,274.00 872,274.00 872,274.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer 51 Homestead ❑Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran El Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages,as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/15/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: This is a petition from the denial of a late filed application for a homestead exemption on property located at 701 Bobwhite Lane, Naples, Florida. This petition was consolidated with Petition No. 2015-342 for purposes of the hearing. Petition 342 relates to the transfer of the homestead assessment differential from Petitioner's former residence. The Petitioner, Leslie A. Sherman, appeared at the hearing and was sworn in. The Property Appraiser ("PA") was represented at hearing by Anabel Ybaceta, Director, Exemptions Department, and Jennifer Earle, Homestead Exemptions Department, both of whom were sworn in. The PA offered its evidence package consisting of 30 pages, which was admitted without objection as PA Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner had no documentary evidence. Petitioner previously enjoyed a homestead exemption for 4033 Belair Lane, Naples. She purchased the subject property in April, 2014. (PA 1, p.12; Sherman) At that time Petitioner intended to make the property her permanent homestead, but was uncertain whether she would live in the house as is or rebuild the home from ground up. (Sherman) She ultimately decided to build a new residence, and in July, 2014, she applied for and received a permit to demolish the entire structure. (PA 1, p. 15; Sherman) During construction, she resided at a friend's residence. (Sherman) The improvements were not substantially complete on January 1, 2015 (Sherman; Ybaceta). In fact, Petitioner did not occupy the home until a few weeks before the hearing. (Sherman; Ybaceta) Petitioner notified PA that she was transferring her homestead and filed application for a homestead exemption for the subject property on September 8, 2015. No explanation was given as to why the petition was filed late or the particular extenuating circumstance justifying the late filed application. As of the hearing, the Petitioner had been issued a temporary Certificate of Occupancy and was residing on the subject property. (Ybaceta; Sherman). Conclusions of Law: The homestead exemption originates in Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const., which states in pertinent part: "Every person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another legally or naturally dependent upon the owner, shall be exempt from taxation thereon. . . upon establishment of right thereto in the manner prescribed by law. . .." Section 196.031(1), F. S., implements this provision and states that "[E]very person who has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who resides thereon and in good faith makes the same his or her permanent home, or the permanent home of another or others legally or naturally dependent upon said person, shall be entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . .." In the instant case, Petitioner was denied a homestead exemption for the subject property which, as of January 1, 2015, was under construction. Petitioner elected to demolish the existing residence and build a new residence. Although Petitioner intended to make this new residence, once completed, her permanent residence, the improvements were not substantially complete as of January 1, 2015, and were therefore not assessed. The Petitioner did not dispute that the residence was not substantially complete at that time or that she was not able to occupy the residence until after the date of filing this petition. It is clear from the constitutional language itself that actual residence upon the property claimed as a homestead is essential to establish entitlement to the homestead exemption. See Section 6, Article VII, Fla. Const.; Matthews v. Jeacle, 55 So. 865 (Fla. 1911); Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox, 13 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1943). Here Petitioner did not reside on the property because the house was under construction. Petitioner testified that it was always her intent to establish this property as her homestead after she purchased the property in April, 2014. As evidence of that, she notified the PA of her change of residence, and the homestead on her prior home was removed. She argues that the removal of the improvements was only temporary and that as a policy matter the PA should overlook this temporary change in the physical status of the property, especially where her actions will only enhance the value of the property and therefore the tax roll. The PA, however, has been directed by the legislature to assess property annually on January 1st every year. Moreover, Section 193.155(3)(a), Fla. Stat., mandates that the PA re-assess the property as of January 1 following a change in ownership. Regardless of the owner's intention, the property cannot constitute a homestead if it is incapable of occupation and has not been assessed as an owner- occupied residential property. Section 196.031(4), Fla. Stat. In this case, the improvements were not substantially complete and the PA had no option but to re-assess the property as of its status on January 1. This issue of substantial completion has arisen in numerous cases under s. 193.042, Fla. Stat., and the Florida Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of this statute, noting in Collier County v. State, 733 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1999) that the Legislature has established a specific statutory scheme for the timing of the valuation and assessment. Section 192.043(1), Fla. Stat., makes clear that partial year assessments are not authorized for improvements to real property substantially completed after January 1, which "shall have no value placed thereon." There is no ambiguity in the statute. This statute reflects the Legislature's intent to delay valuation of improvements to property until such time as these improvements are substantially completed. The "substantial completion" statute prescribes reasonable guidelines for valuation of incomplete improvements for property tax purposes, which infuse uniformity and certainty into ad valorem taxation. The absence of a "substantial completion" statute would only promote uncertainty and encourage litigation. Sunset Harbor Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 915 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005). In addition, it is interesting to note that the legislature has provided for the maintenance of a homestead exemption in the instance where a residence has been damaged by a calamity or misfortune, and grants the homeowner a period of three years within which to complete the improvements. Section 196.031(6), Fla. Stat. However, there is no similar provision where the owner elects to rebuild the home. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PA's denial of her late filed application for homestead exemption was wrong. All relevant and credible evidence showed that the home was under construction as of January 1, 2015, and was not substantially complete for purposes of assessment. The exemption applies only to property classified and assessed as owner-occupied residential property. Section 196.03(4), Fla. Stat. Therefore, under the facts of this case, the PA could not have legally granted an exemption for the property. Consequently, Petitioner failed to meet her burden and it is the recommendation of this Special Magistrate that the petition be denied. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code e Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier p These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00342 Parcel ID 16004920002 Petitioner name SHERMAN, LESLIE A Property 4033 BELAIRLN The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,897,461.00 1,897,461.00 1,897,461.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,897,461.00 1,897,461.00 1,897,461.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,897,461.00 1,897,461.00 1,897,461.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer ❑ 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 A Transfer of homestead assessment difference ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages,as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/15/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: This is a petition of a denial of the transfer of the Save Our Homes differential from the previous homestead of Petitioner to property located at 701 Bobwhite Lane. Petitioner is Leslie A. Sherman, who appeared at the hearing. The Property Appraiser ("PA") was represented by Anabel Ybaceta, Director, Exemptions Department, and Jennifer Earle, Homestead Exemption Department. All parties were sworn in. The Petitioner also petitioned the denial of her homestead exemption for the Bobwhite Lane property and the petitions were consolidated for purposes of the hearing. The PA offered its 30-page evidence package and it was admitted without objection as PA Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner had no documentary evidence. Petitioner previously enjoyed a homestead exemption for 4033 Belair Lane, Naples. She purchased the subject property in April, 2014. (PA 1, p.12; Sherman) At that time Petitioner intended to make the property her permanent homestead, but was uncertain whether she would live in the house as is or rebuild the home from ground up. (Sherman) She ultimately decided to build a new residence, and in July, 2014, she applied for and received a permit to demolish the entire structure. (PA 1, p. 15; Sherman) During construction, she resided at a friend's residence. (Sherman) The improvements were not substantially complete on January 1, 2015 (Sherman; Ybaceta). In fact, Petitioner did not occupy the home until a few weeks before the hearing. (Sherman; Ybaceta) Petitioner notified PA that she was transferring her homestead and filed application for a homestead exemption for the subject property on September 8, 2015. No explanation was given as to why the petition was filed late or the particular extenuating circumstance justifying the late filed application. The Request for Transfer of the Homestead Assessment Differential was also filed on September 8, 2015. Conclusions of Law: The homestead exemption originates in Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const., which states in pertinent part: "Every person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another legally or naturally dependent upon the owner, shall be exempt from taxation thereon. . . upon establishment of right thereto in the manner prescribed by law. . .." Section 196.031(1), F. S., implements this provision and states that "[E]very person who has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who resides thereon and in good faith makes the same his or her permanent home, or the permanent home of another or others legally or naturally dependent upon said person, shall be entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . .." In the instant case, Petitioner was denied a homestead exemption for the subject property which, as of January 1, 2015, was under construction. Because the improvements were not substantially complete, the PA was unable to assess the property as an owner- occupied residential property and the property was ineligible for a homestead exemption. See Petition 341, Conclusions of Law, for explanation of this recommendation. Because Petitioner was not eligible for a homestead exemption on January 1, 2015, Petitioner was not entitled to transfer any assessment difference from her prior home. Section 193.155(8) states that property assessed under this section [homestead] will be assessed at less than just value when the person establishing a new homestead has received a homestead exemption as of January 1, in either the two preceding years. Consequently, Petitioner was not entitled to the transfer in 2015 but will receive the transfer in 2016 if Petitioner obtains a homestead exemption for the subject property as of January 1, 2016. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PA's denial of her petition for transfer of the homestead assessment difference was wrong. All relevant and credible evidence showed that the subject property did not enjoy a homestead exemption and as such was not eligible for the transfer of any assessment difference from Petitioner's prior home. Consequently, Petitioner failed to meet her burden and it is the recommendation of this Special Magistrate that the petition be denied. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 1I These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00344 Parcel ID 34569500020 Petitioner name JULIAN STOKES Property 8183 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record j taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary [0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 15,977,709.00 15,977,709.00 15,977,709.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 15,977,709.00 15,977,709.00 15,977,709.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 15,977,709.00 15,977,709.00 15,977,709.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/04/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. Julian Stokes, MAI (NOT appearing in the capacity as a licensed appraiser). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject property is a modern, unanchored multi-tenant shopping center with 226,424 SF of building area situated upon a site of 29.57 acres. The PAO uses all 3 traditional approaches to value. In addition to the approaches, the PAO includes a copy of business cards for the PAO's staff, an aerial photograph, building sketches, building card information, capitalization rate survey information, 2014 big box assessments, impact fee calculations, the subject's Loopnet rental listing, Marshall Valuation back-up documentation regarding cost figures, and Costar/Loopnet information. The subject is located at the NW quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport-Pulling Road North. It has had significant vacancy problems since it was built. It also has awkward access (limited turn lanes) and visibility (outparcels block the main center) problems. It is worthy to note that there are two outparcels that are not a part of the "subject" of this hearing. From the aerial provided, it does appear there are 5 outparcels that ARE a part of this hearing, and two appear vacant, while the remaining 3 appear improved. All the outparcels are located along either Airport-Pulling Road or Vanderbilt Beach Boulevard; thus, the structure upon each still has considerable value. There are also signage problems. A community development district payment obligation exists too, per the PET. In the PAO's Cost Approach, the PAO only presents a roster of 11 land sales, as well as 2 land listings. From the land data, the PAO concludes a land value of$9.50/square foot X the subject's land area of 1,288,069 SF, then adds impact fees (which run with the land) of$3,492,717 for a total value of$15,729,373(rounded). This figure is almost equivalent to the total just value being contested at this hearing ($15,977,709). As stated, the impact fees `run with the land', even if the structure is demolished; thus, the impact fees remain significant. The PAO then adds site work @ $1.25/SF of land area ($1,610,086) and the depreciated value of the improvements ($25,578,687) for a total Cost Approach conclusion of$42,918,249. It is noted that the PAO lumps in the site work with the land value + impact fees, but this is not proper methodology, as the site work is specific to the site plan it serves, and does not necessarily translate into fully usable site work to a completely different redevelopment concept. By the significantly higher value of the PAO's Cost Approach (relative to all the other approaches), it is apparent that there are SUBSTANTIAL issues of functional and/or external obsolescence that are not being accounted for in the PAO's Cost Approach. From a land value + impact fee basis alone though, the PAO's figure of$15,977,709 does appear reasonable, and almost supports the full assessment being appealed (as stated previously). In the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a roster of 19 improved sales (1 from Sarasota County, 7 from Lee County & 11 from Collier County). The subject's assessment is $70.57/SF of building area, while the PAO concludes $100/SF (i.e. $22,642,400) from the roster of sales. The PAO's conclusion via this approach does not at all appear unreasonable from the data presented, given the PAO's assessment is less than ANY of the 19 sales provided on a $/SF of building area basis. The PAO notes the Albertson's Plaza had a dark anchor store & sold for $79.97/SF. The Sugden Park Plaza in East Naples was 45% occupied & sold for the 2nd lowest price of$101.06/SF. In reference to building area, the Springs Plaza (Bonita) was the most similar at 205,172 SF, and it sold for $115.51/SF. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach appears quite reasonable from the data presented, and it is based upon the lower end of the sales and (arguably) many from inferior Lee County transactions. In the PAO's Income Approach, the PAO applies an (gross) rate of$18/SF to 226,424 SF of the center, 30% vacancy rate & 35% expenses, and then applies a loaded OAR of 8.5% to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of$21.8M (rounded) via this approach. The PAO's rental rate is a blend of large, small, frontage, non-frontage spaces. The PAO notes the advertised rates for vacant spaces at the subject's center are much higher. The PAO does provides the subject's Loopnet rental listing in evidence that shows asking rental rates of$28-32/SF NNN (not gross). The PAO notes that there was a prior sale of the subject for $21.6M in 2005, and the subject's occupancy was similar to what currently exists. Some of the buildings were incomplete at that time, but subsequently have been completed. Based upon the PAO's evidence & testimony, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness, especially with the land value support and some degree of consideration to vertical improvements on the outparcels at a minimum. PET TESTIMONY: The Petitioner (PET) provides a cover letter dated 11/19/2015 to David Thorse (assumed to be affiliated with the subject's owner), rent rolls for years 2011-14, 2014 profit & loss, and 4 residential land sales that closed during 2014. In his cover letter, Mr. Stokes is requesting a just value of$11,945,000. Mr. Stokes states he is asking for additional consideration for the subject's problems (high vacancy, development district obligations of$581,000 + , lack of I-75 interchange with Vanderbilt Beach Road, poor access, lack of signage, etc.) Mr. Stokes does provide land sales; however, the subject is a commercially zoned property and those land sales are not particularly relevant. Mr. Stokes notes the subject has H&BU issues and the ownership is giving consideration to the redevelopment/partial redevelopment of the site. However, while that may be true, that is a long-term possibility that is not an in the IMMEDIATE future for consideration from an assessment perspective (per law). Mr. Stokes does state his use of residential sales is `hypothetical'. Mr. Stokes indicates he has worked with the ownership for several years to try and figure out what to do with this property. The legal use of the land (as of the assessment date) is the manner in which the PAO valued the land. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. While the PET does address a variety of the subject's problems that have existed for years, the subject remains a fairly substantial and modern development of almost a quarter million square feet of building area. Given the assessment is so low, it is apparent the PAO gives very little consideration in the assessment above and beyond the subject's land value + impact fees. It does appear from the subject's poor site plan that it was doomed to failure from its inception. It does appear the PAO is giving more than ample consideration to a wide array of the subject's issues. The PET fails to demonstrate sales of retail centers in the region are below the (already low) sales used by the PAO in his Sales Comparison Approach. The PET's use of an admitted `hypothetical' analysis using residential land sales for land zoned commercially fails to demonstrate methodology appropriate for a reduction in a VAB hearing. The subject is clearly a troubled asset that will likely have several more years of turmoil until such time a more reasonable redevelopment concept can be approved by local governing officials. This could (and probably will) involve both zoning and land use amendment changes that take time. Until then, the PAO's methodology appears reasonable and appropriate. Based upon the weight and preponderance of evidence, the PAO's assessment is upheld. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. � Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. WI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00355 Parcel ID 14012520001 Petitioner name JULIAN STOKES Property 215 13THAVE S The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,391,572.00 4,391,572.00 4,391,572.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,439,758.00 2,439,758.00 2,439,758.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,439,758.00 2,439,758.00 2,439,758.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/07/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/07/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Abe Skinner, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Julian Stokes (with ARC Realty Advisors), Mr. Stephen Thompson, Esq. (of Roetzel & Andress, LPA), and Ms. Barbara Walker (with Neapolitan Enterprises). It is noted that Mr. Stokes is not acting in the capacity as a licensed real estate appraiser at this hearing (even though he holds the MAI appraisal designation), but is acting in the capacity as a real estate broker/CCIM. PETITIONS HEARD TOGETHER / PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Three (3) different petitions are being heard together as one related appeal. These include Petitions 2015-355 & 360 [with contested just values of$4,391,572 & $2,004,509, respectively, for a total of$6,396,081], which are contiguous parking lots (referred to by the PET as "Parking Area K", and as "3rd Street Area Parking Lot" by the PAO), and Petition 2015-367 [with contested just value of$2,445,338], which is another parking area (with a small shelter/gazebo building and referred to as "Parking Area A" by the PET, and also "3rd Street Area Park and Parking Lot" by the PAO). Parking Area A is a block northeast of Parking Area K. All the subject parking areas are on prime real estate in downtown Naples in the 3rd Street shopping area. The combined just value of all 3 petitions is $8,841,419. The gazebo/band shell located on TP-367 (Parking Parcel A) is a small, non-enclosed structure with no walls, but it does have a metal roof. Its dimensions are 20' x 20', or 400 SF. This small building is situated upon a lot of 32,490 SF, or 0.746 acres, per the PAO's evidence. Petitions 2015-355 & 360 (i.e. Parking Area K) have a combined land area of 110,214 SF (2.53 acres), per the PAO's evidence. The grand total land area petitioned is 142,704 SF, or 3.276 acres. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted two related & very similar packets of information for the two separate areas (parking areas A and K). The PAO presents aerial photographs, ground level photographs of the subjects building/parking lot, building sketch of the gazebo, Cost Approach/Land Sales roster, map noting the location of comparable sales, the subject's building card information, cap rate information/trends, Costar vacancy/quoted rates, Loopnet asking price index, Bergstrom cap rates, and apartment cap rates. [Note: The market cap/rental/asking rate information is of no particular relevance to this hearing, yet the PAO includes it anyway]. In the Cost Approach, the PAO's main focus is on the valuation of the land, as the `improvements' consist of mainly paving (given value in the larger/combined Parking Area K only). The PAO provides an extensive list of 30 land sales/residuals and two land listings in and around the downtown general area. Most of the transactions are located along the Tamiami Trail corridor, but some are along (or west of) Goodlette-Frank Road North. Sale #1 (very close to the subject) is a very small site of 9,990 SF with a building that was later demolished, & it closed in 2011 for $150.15/SF of land area. Eleven (11) sales closed in 2013, while an additional 13 closed in 2014. Five of the PAO's land indicators closed during 15; thus, they are only considered for trending purposes. Mr. Stephens indicates true land sales in the area are extremely scarce; thus, he uses mainly `residual' indicators; whereby, the assessed value of the improvements is deducted from the sales price to get an indication of the land value. The PAO does note that his sale #3 ($44.73/SF) was a vacant lot, his sale #10 was a land sale ($97.58/SF), and his sale #12 is a parking lot ($86.80/SF). The PAO does provide a location map for his sales; however, the locations of his sales 19 & 25 are missing. The PAO notes that sale #25 had a commercial building upon it that was torn down, and then the land was converted into 3 single family lots for a land value indication of$165.16/SF (without considering demolition costs). In the PAO's land valuation of Parking Area K (i.e. petitions 355 & 360), he gives weight to $150/SF X a size adjustment of 50% for an indicator of$75/SF, then multiplies that by 110,214 SF for a land indicator of$8,266,050. The PAO then adds for the depreciated value of the paving improvements ($203,544), for a total Cost Approach indication for Parking Area K of$8,469,594 (in support of its combined assessment of $6,396,081). In the PAO's separate land valuation of Parking Area A (i.e. petition 367), he uses the same land sales and gives weight to $150/SF X a size adjustment of 75% for an indicator of$112.50/SF, then multiplies that by 32,490 SF for a land indicator of$3,655,125, which is his Cost Approach conclusion for Parking Area A. The PAO did not assign any additional value contribution for paving or the gazebo for this area. Combining the two pieces of the subject's value indicators, the PAO concludes the market supports a value of$11,921,175, which equates to a weighted average of$83.54/ SF. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a color shaded rendering of multiple blocks in the 3rd Street area. Various tenants are shown, along with blue shading for the subject's parking areas A & K that provide parking to the owner's various holdings in this area. The PET provided a small notebook with tabs at the hearing with their submitted evidence divided into 6 sections. The notebook contains 1) Mr. Stokes' expert report, 2) Florida Statutes, 3) Atlantic v. Turner case information, 4) DOR v. Morganwoods Greentree, Inc. info, 5) Home v. Dadeland Shopping Center info, and 6) Todora va. Venice Gold and Country Club #1 information. At the hearing, I accepted an additional (corrected) page from Mr. Stokes, which was his corrected reconciliation of value. That correction is basically a grid that was page 2 of his expert report letter in the first tab of the evidence notebook provided. Mr. Stokes summarizes the "retained value to parking component" figures applicable to the 3 petitions, as follows: TP-355 ($1,230,733), TP-360 ($563,025), and TP-367 ($1,366,532). Collectively, these 3 figures total $3,160,290, or $22.15/SF, based upon the combined site area of 142,704 SF. It is reiterated and noted that Mr. Stokes is not acting in the capacity as a licensed real estate appraiser at this hearing (even though he holds the MAI appraisal designation), but is acting in the capacity as a real estate broker/CCIM. In the first page of Mr. Stokes' letter dated November 19, 2015 to Ms. Walker (of Neapolitan Enterprises), he states, "Your contention is that the value of the parking lots has been collectively transferred to the improved properties located in the Third Street South Shopping District." In this ruling, I am continuing to quote Mr. Stoke's letter, as it conveniently summarizes the PET's position on the issues presented for my consideration and ruling at this VAB hearing. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Mr. Stoke's letter state, "The parking area are restricted by City of Naples Resolution 11-12928. This document specifically restricts (Section 2,Item 2.) to provide on-site parking for Buildings B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, as depicted on the site plan. The buildings make up the improved components of the Neapolitan Properties, currently used for restaurants, retail stores, offices, and apartments." Mr. Stoke's paragraph 3 states, "Subsequent to my analysis I am in agreement that the current assessment of the parking areas constitutes an over assessment due to much of the assessed value having been transferred to the improved commercial property components. However, I do not believe that the transfer of the value constitutes 100%." Mr. Stokes does an analysis of comparing the mixed use (office/apartment/retail) Neapolitan Properties to other retail/office properties in the immediate area. Essentially, Mr. Stokes contends the PAO has PARTIALLY double-accounted (i.e. partially double- assessed) the subject properties petitioned by a combined total dollar amount of $3,160,290 (revised upward via the correction from the original $2,996,784 figure). The corrected breakdown by Mr. Stokes for the $3,160,290 figure he thinks the subject should be assessed is $1,230,733 for TP-355, $563,025 for TP360, and $1,366,532 for TP 367, based upon the corrected exhibit he provided (and I accepted) at the hearing. Mr. Stokes noted the correction was necessary to equitably allocate the 13 surplus parking stalls to all 3 folios, as well as only allocate the `surplus land' component to only TP-367 (since that surplus land only applies to TP-367). RULING: 1) The PAO did establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. 2) Mr. Stokes appeared at this hearing as a real estate broker with his CRE and CCIM credentials, and not as an "MAI"/certified general appraiser (even though he has those qualifications). As Mr. Stokes is well aware, there are significant differences in the laws applicable to appraisers and the type of rules that apply to verbal or written representations of value. Mr. Stokes knows the local market very well, was a recent employee of the Collier County Property Appraiser's staff as Chief Deputy from 1/2010-8/2013, and he is accepted as an expert in real estate matters in Naples and Collier County. Late in the hearing, Mr. Stokes eludes to performing a verbal appraisal review (subject to Standard 3 of USPAP). Given Mr. Stokes appeared initially as a broker (not an appraiser), he should be very careful about switching "hats" in the middle of a recorded hearing. 3) There is no `unity of title' that specifically binds these subject parking areas to the nearby specific commercial properties they serve; however, it is acknowledged that the City of Naples officially recorded Resolution 11-12928 indirectly ties 341 parking stalls (i.e. 354 less 28 unallocated spaces) to specific `Neapolitan' properties within 600' of the subject parcels. That resolution is in response is in response to a `Conditional Use Petition 11-CU6' back in 2011. 4) Mr. Stokes states in verbal testimony (and Mr. Thompson, Esq. asserts in his written post-hearing summary) that the ONLY use that would be allowed is limited to just that parking described. However, I do not interpret that resolution in any way as being a ruling by the City of Naples that would preclude other reasonable or customary uses that might later be permitted in PD (or already allowed in C1), as long as the parking was maintained to service those other properties within the spirit of Resolution 11-129128. Parking Area K remains a site zoned PD (Planned Development District), while Parking Area A remains a site apparently zoned Cl (Retail Shopping District). 5) Quoting from the PD definition, "The PD district is intended to accommodate integrated and well-designed developments in accordance with approved development plans. The district is intended to offer flexibility of design and to encourage imaginative, functional, high-quality land planning development which is compatible with adjacent and nearby lands and activities." "No specific list of uses permitted is established for the PD district. Land proposed for development under the PD district may contain a mixture of residential, commercial, recreational and other uses. Uses and residential densities in the PD district shall be limited by the future land use designation of the comprehensive plan. Where the comprehensive plan does not specify a limit on residential density, the PD district shall be limited to eight dwelling units per net acre for permanent residential units. Maximum density shall not apply to nursing homes, rest homes or group homes in a PD district, except that, when nursing homes include any units with kitchens or cooking facilities, the maximum density for such facilities shall be 18 units per net acre. There is no maximum density for transient lodging facilities in a PD district. Residential density within a PD district that covers more than one future land use category shall be calculated based on the land area within each category. 6) Quoting from the C 1 definition, "The C 1 district is intended to accommodate the city's prestige shopping areas and a limited amount of residential development. It is more restrictive and specialized than the C2 general commercial district." In the C 1 district, no building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, and all merchandise shall be stored and displayed in an enclosed building: -Small-scale retail sales establishments other than shopping centers. Retail sales establishments may include incidental processing, repair and rental activities except rental of motor vehicles which requires a conditional use, provided they are accessory and subordinate to the retail sales use, and provided that all storage, processing and repair of merchandise occurs within the principal building. -Art or photography studios. -Bakery, retail, with baking on the premises, with all baked goods sold at retail on the premises. -Convenience service establishments such as tailoring, garment alterations and repair, shoe repair and the like. -Cultural facilities, including libraries and museums, and publicly owned buildings. -Financial institutions, excluding drive-up windows, which are permitted only by conditional use petition approval. -Laundry or dry cleaning pickup establishments, with no laundering or dry cleaning on the premises. -Medical offices and clinics (not animal). -Parking lots, noncommercial, with no meters or on-site parking fee collection. -Personal service establishments such as barbershops or beauty shops. -Professional, business, financial, civic or public utility offices. -Restaurants, conventional, with or without cocktail lounges. Dancing or staged entertainment facilities are permitted only by conditional use petition approval. -Accessory uses or structures which are incidental to and customarily associated with the permitted uses in this district listed in subsections (1) through (12) of this section. 7) It is noted that parking garages and `commercial' parking lots are `conditional uses'within the Cl district, but parking lots, noncommercial, with no meters or on-site parking fee collection are `permitted' uses of the Cl code. 8) Mr. Thompson asserts in his post-hearing summary that the PAO "failed to consider a recorded encumbrance limiting the use of the Parking Parcels to servient parking use. .." The PET never specifically asks the PAO if he did or did not consider the restriction. I listened to the audio file twice, and the PAO NEVER states he failed to consider the restrictions of the resolution. In his post-hearing commentary, Mr. Thompson notes that in tax years 2012 and 2013, the subject's total assessment (all 3 folios) was dramatically lower than in 2015. [So if using Mr. Thompson's logic, it begs the question, "Did the PAO consider the encumbrance in years 2012 & 2013, and has subsequently forget or disregarded them?"] The assessed portion is still capped to a maximum 10% increase for the non-school board portion. Regardless, each assessment year stands on its own merits. 9) Mr. Stephens and Mr. Wood both assert that it is unknown how the PET can contest the assessment in the manner they did without also appraising the related (but non- petitioned) improved properties that need the parking. In this particular case, there does appear to be merit to that argument (at least based upon the evidence I have to consider). 10) Mr. Stokes does not present any land sales or any improved sales at this hearing. He also does not present any Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach or any Income Approach. His analysis is based upon comparable assessments, and his assertion that a portion of the subject's assessment has been subject to double accounting by the PAO. In his methodology, Mr. Stokes does include both land and building assessments, as well as land and building areas in his comparative analysis. 11) It is interesting to note that the chart exhibit prepared by Mr. Stokes also includes the year built for various structures included in his analysis, along with the use(s) of each property. Of the 9 buildings tied to the subject's parking lot, four of them have a `residential' component (to some degree); whereas, NONE of the four other buildings have a residential component. Furthermore, the `year built' of four subject buildings are noted as 1956, 1962, 1961 and even 1918/68. The influence of this many older buildings (as compared to the '71-'85 years of construction for the 4 other buildings not tied to the subject's parking) COMBINED WITH the residential component could be influencing factors that impact the lower weighted average assessment/SF of building for those 9 buildings needing parking ($162.71/SF), as compared to the weighted average of the other 4 buildings that already have parking ($178.77/SF). This is a problem for the PET, as Mr. Stokes bases his entire analysis on slightly dissimilar data sets (i.e. one data set possibly weighted down with some older buildings that include a residential component not directly comparable enough to the other data set with slightly newer buildings without any residential component). The residential component alone could introduce different parking requirements that matter. Regardless, the combination of the two elements could be sufficient to explain the weighted average differences in the $/SF indicators from the two data sets. The addition of the substantial and additional land area (and assessed values) of the subject petitions then results in a weighted average of $225.93/SF, but also a far lower FAR (floor to area ratio) of 40.4% that helps to justify the discrepancy (and higher $/SF of building indicator). This helps to justify the argument by both Mr. Wood & Mr. Stephens that for the PET's argument to be valid, he would have to value all related interests to conclusively prove the assessment is excessive. In such case, the PET should have also petitioned those 9 other properties so that the PAO could have also defended them, as well. 12) Mr. Stephens indicates in his 25 years at Collier County, he has never seen any financial operating information that is requested every single year from this owner. Had that information been provided for 2015 (and/or prior years), it could have been persuasive in a lower assessment by the PAO, as the PAO could have then better considered the Income Approach with a far greater degree of reliability, given we are dealing with 139,858 SF of total building area affiliated with the subject's parking lots. 13) The PAO's assessment relating to the 3 folios petitioned was defended by the PAO only with the use of land value indicators, given the 3 petitioned folios do not have any rentable areas (just a small gazebo of no significance). The PAO has TP-355/360 assessed at $59.82/SF of land area, according to his land sales chart. The PAO has TP-367 assessed at $75/SF of land area. Given the PAO's ACTUAL land sales of $150.15/SF, $97.58/SF, parking lot sale of$86.80/SF, and tear-down indictor of $165.16/SF, it does not appear the PAO's assessments for a prime commercial location in Naples is unreasonable. 14) The PD zoning of Parking Area K states, "the maximum height of all commercial buildings shall be limited to 3 stories and 42 feet, measured from the l st-floor FEMA elevation to the peak of the roof or the highest point of any appurtenance attached to the roof."Just because the only approved (thus far) use has been the surface parking does not necessarily mean at all that the City would not allow either a 2-story or 3-story garage that could still EASILY accommodate the existing number of stalls stipulated in Resolution 11-12928. It just means the subject's owner has not yet made any such request. It does not mean or imply the existing use is the H&BU at all. In fact on that topic, it is easy to look at certain laws to see how the written language may properly encompass the vast majority of properties being assessed, but certainly not all. By use of the PET's logic and quotation of the law, ONLY the permitted use should be would be assessed. Well that begs the questions (for the PD-zoned K parking lot only), "What if it was sitting where it is in its natural state covered with trees, yet still zoned PD & never yet approved for ANY use at all?" iven there are NO automatically approved uses at all within the quoted zoning definition of PD, should it be assessed for ZERO DOLLARS (as the PET would imply) only because its owner had not yet applied for any given use, even though it sits in one of the most desirable areas of Naples??? Herein lies the ABSURDITY OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION of certain laws, particularly with assessment language pertaining to LAND especially. The concept and literal interpretation of"immediate future uses" is also equally perplexing and often illogical when it comes to LAND. Often, the "immediate" H&BU is to do nothing but hold the property and wait. Obviously, that does not imply the land in those cases has no value at all. It is my interpretation that the term "immediate" use is far better applied to properties improved with existing buildings (such as a shopping center, office building, etc.). In the case of the subject parking lots, the only `improvements' to speak of relate to paving on some or most of the parcel in question. I would argue that it does not take excessively long to build an extra level of parking and it can be done or arranged so that it the work is performed out of season during low parking demand related to the adjacent properties. Basically, most commercial land acquisitions or valuations involve a little bit of time to get some type of building constructed. Thus, with respect to land in particular (or even parking lots in the subject's case), the literal interpretation of`immediate' is far less relevant and inappropriate when dealing with a PRIME commercial parcel in one of the most desirable sections of Collier County. 15) As it relates to the prior paragraph, I do not consider the possibility of adding some degree of deck parking to the subject to be unreasonable, nor contrary to assessment law as it pertains to this hearing. Just because the current owner may not have pursued it does not mean that buyers in the market would not consider it, and still be able to do it timely AND preserve the necessary parking in the spirit of Resolution 11-12928. Parking structures have become increasingly popular in areas of high land values. Architecturally speaking, their exterior elevations have also become much more attractive and less objectionable to neighbors with better fenestration features added. Simply stated, Resolution 11-12928 does NOT PROHIBIT the consideration of adding MORE PARKING at a later date. It states parking for the 9 buildings is to be provided. The resolution does NOT RESTRICT air rights on either parking area considered in this hearing. If so, it could have been deemed a form of`inverse condemnation' for which the owner could be warranted compensation. 16) While I did not solicit any commentary, I did read one post-hearing email with comments from each attorney to this hearing. Each has been submitted into evidence in Axia. 17) In summary, I am not suggesting that (if properly prepared and presented) the PET's arguments have no merit. What I am saying is that based upon the information provided at this hearing from both parties (and NO SALES WHATSOEVER from the PET), there has been insufficient proof to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. This ruling in no way questions the knowledge, professionalism, or competency of the Petitioner's agent or attorney. There COULD BE merit to support their contention that some degree of double accounting (or taxation) has taken place that might be inconsistent with the manner of taxation of other `like kind' properties in its area; HOWEVER, with this size of land, magnitude of 203,621 SF of buildings, and the complex nature of mixed-use data sets, it is a time-consuming & expensive process to prove. It may very likely require valuation of all related interests in the `full bundle of rights' associated with the petitioned AND non-petitioned folios. 18) The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld for each of the 3 folios considered. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00360 Parcel ID 14012760007 Petitioner name JULIAN STOKES Property 245 13THAVE S The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,004,509.00 2,004,509.00 2,004,509.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,111,024.00 1,111,024.00 1,111,024.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,111,024.00 1,111,024.00 1,111,024.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/07/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/07/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Abe Skinner, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Julian Stokes (with ARC Realty Advisors), Mr. Stephen Thompson, Esq. (of Roetzel & Andress, LPA), and Ms. Barbara Walker (with Neapolitan Enterprises). It is noted that Mr. Stokes is not acting in the capacity as a licensed real estate appraiser at this hearing (even though he holds the MAI appraisal designation), but is acting in the capacity as a real estate broker/CCIM. PETITIONS HEARD TOGETHER / PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Three (3) different petitions are being heard together as one related appeal. These include Petitions 2015-355 & 360 [with contested just values of$4,391,572 & $2,004,509, respectively, for a total of$6,396,081], which are contiguous parking lots (referred to by the PET as "Parking Area K", and as "3rd Street Area Parking Lot" by the PAO), and Petition 2015-367 [with contested just value of$2,445,338], which is another parking area (with a small shelter/gazebo building and referred to as "Parking Area A" by the PET, and also "3rd Street Area Park and Parking Lot" by the PAO). Parking Area A is a block northeast of Parking Area K. All the subject parking areas are on prime real estate in downtown Naples in the 3rd Street shopping area. The combined just value of all 3 petitions is $8,841,419. The gazebo/band shell located on TP-367 (Parking Parcel A) is a small, non-enclosed structure with no walls, but it does have a metal roof. Its dimensions are 20' x 20', or 400 SF. This small building is situated upon a lot of 32,490 SF, or 0.746 acres, per the PAO's evidence. Petitions 2015-355 & 360 (i.e. Parking Area K) have a combined land area of 110,214 SF (2.53 acres), per the PAO's evidence. The grand total land area petitioned is 142,704 SF, or 3.276 acres. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted two related & very similar packets of information for the two separate areas (parking areas A and K). The PAO presents aerial photographs, ground level photographs of the subjects building/parking lot, building sketch of the gazebo, Cost Approach/Land Sales roster, map noting the location of comparable sales, the subject's building card information, cap rate information/trends, Costar vacancy/quoted rates, Loopnet asking price index, Bergstrom cap rates, and apartment cap rates. [Note: The market cap/rental/asking rate information is of no particular relevance to this hearing, yet the PAO includes it anyway]. In the Cost Approach, the PAO's main focus is on the valuation of the land, as the `improvements' consist of mainly paving (given value in the larger/combined Parking Area K only). The PAO provides an extensive list of 30 land sales/residuals and two land listings in and around the downtown general area. Most of the transactions are located along the Tamiami Trail corridor, but some are along (or west of) Goodlette-Frank Road North. Sale #1 (very close to the subject) is a very small site of 9,990 SF with a building that was later demolished, & it closed in 2011 for $150.15/SF of land area. Eleven (11) sales closed in 2013, while an additional 13 closed in 2014. Five of the PAO's land indicators closed during 15; thus, they are only considered for trending purposes. Mr. Stephens indicates true land sales in the area are extremely scarce; thus, he uses mainly `residual' indicators; whereby, the assessed value of the improvements is deducted from the sales price to get an indication of the land value. The PAO does note that his sale #3 ($44.73/SF) was a vacant lot, his sale #10 was a land sale ($97.58/SF), and his sale #12 is a parking lot ($86.80/SF). The PAO does provide a location map for his sales; however, the locations of his sales 19 & 25 are missing. The PAO notes that sale #25 had a commercial building upon it that was torn down, and then the land was converted into 3 single family lots for a land value indication of$165.16/SF (without considering demolition costs). In the PAO's land valuation of Parking Area K (i.e. petitions 355 & 360), he gives weight to $150/SF X a size adjustment of 50% for an indicator of$75/SF, then multiplies that by 110,214 SF for a land indicator of$8,266,050. The PAO then adds for the depreciated value of the paving improvements ($203,544), for a total Cost Approach indication for Parking Area K of$8,469,594 (in support of its combined assessment of $6,396,081). In the PAO's separate land valuation of Parking Area A (i.e. petition 367), he uses the same land sales and gives weight to $150/SF X a size adjustment of 75% for an indicator of$112.50/SF, then multiplies that by 32,490 SF for a land indicator of$3,655,125, which is his Cost Approach conclusion for Parking Area A. The PAO did not assign any additional value contribution for paving or the gazebo for this area. Combining the two pieces of the subject's value indicators, the PAO concludes the market supports a value of$11,921,175, which equates to a weighted average of$83.54/ SF. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a color shaded rendering of multiple blocks in the 3rd Street area. Various tenants are shown, along with blue shading for the subject's parking areas A & K that provide parking to the owner's various holdings in this area. The PET provided a small notebook with tabs at the hearing with their submitted evidence divided into 6 sections. The notebook contains 1) Mr. Stokes' expert report, 2) Florida Statutes, 3) Atlantic v. Turner case information, 4) DOR v. Morganwoods Greentree, Inc. info, 5) Home v. Dadeland Shopping Center info, and 6) Todora va. Venice Gold and Country Club #1 information. At the hearing, I accepted an additional (corrected) page from Mr. Stokes, which was his corrected reconciliation of value. That correction is basically a grid that was page 2 of his expert report letter in the first tab of the evidence notebook provided. Mr. Stokes summarizes the "retained value to parking component" figures applicable to the 3 petitions, as follows: TP-355 ($1,230,733), TP-360 ($563,025), and TP-367 ($1,366,532). Collectively, these 3 figures total $3,160,290, or $22.15/SF, based upon the combined site area of 142,704 SF. It is reiterated and noted that Mr. Stokes is not acting in the capacity as a licensed real estate appraiser at this hearing (even though he holds the MAI appraisal designation), but is acting in the capacity as a real estate broker/CCIM. In the first page of Mr. Stokes' letter dated November 19, 2015 to Ms. Walker (of Neapolitan Enterprises), he states, "Your contention is that the value of the parking lots has been collectively transferred to the improved properties located in the Third Street South Shopping District." In this ruling, I am continuing to quote Mr. Stoke's letter, as it conveniently summarizes the PET's position on the issues presented for my consideration and ruling at this VAB hearing. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Mr. Stoke's letter state, "The parking area are restricted by City of Naples Resolution 11-12928. This document specifically restricts (Section 2,Item 2.) to provide on-site parking for Buildings B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, as depicted on the site plan. The buildings make up the improved components of the Neapolitan Properties, currently used for restaurants, retail stores, offices, and apartments." Mr. Stoke's paragraph 3 states, "Subsequent to my analysis I am in agreement that the current assessment of the parking areas constitutes an over assessment due to much of the assessed value having been transferred to the improved commercial property components. However, I do not believe that the transfer of the value constitutes 100%." Mr. Stokes does an analysis of comparing the mixed use (office/apartment/retail) Neapolitan Properties to other retail/office properties in the immediate area. Essentially, Mr. Stokes contends the PAO has PARTIALLY double-accounted (i.e. partially double- assessed) the subject properties petitioned by a combined total dollar amount of $3,160,290 (revised upward via the correction from the original $2,996,784 figure). The corrected breakdown by Mr. Stokes for the $3,160,290 figure he thinks the subject should be assessed is $1,230,733 for TP-355, $563,025 for TP360, and $1,366,532 for TP 367, based upon the corrected exhibit he provided (and I accepted) at the hearing. Mr. Stokes noted the correction was necessary to equitably allocate the 13 surplus parking stalls to all 3 folios, as well as only allocate the `surplus land' component to only TP-367 (since that surplus land only applies to TP-367). RULING: 1) The PAO did establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. 2) Mr. Stokes appeared at this hearing as a real estate broker with his CRE and CCIM credentials, and not as an "MAI"/certified general appraiser (even though he has those qualifications). As Mr. Stokes is well aware, there are significant differences in the laws applicable to appraisers and the type of rules that apply to verbal or written representations of value. Mr. Stokes knows the local market very well, was a recent employee of the Collier County Property Appraiser's staff as Chief Deputy from 1/2010-8/2013, and he is accepted as an expert in real estate matters in Naples and Collier County. Late in the hearing, Mr. Stokes eludes to performing a verbal appraisal review (subject to Standard 3 of USPAP). Given Mr. Stokes appeared initially as a broker (not an appraiser), he should be very careful about switching "hats" in the middle of a recorded hearing. 3) There is no `unity of title' that specifically binds these subject parking areas to the nearby specific commercial properties they serve; however, it is acknowledged that the City of Naples officially recorded Resolution 11-12928 indirectly ties 341 parking stalls (i.e. 354 less 28 unallocated spaces) to specific `Neapolitan' properties within 600' of the subject parcels. That resolution is in response is in response to a `Conditional Use Petition 11-CU6' back in 2011. 4) Mr. Stokes states in verbal testimony (and Mr. Thompson, Esq. asserts in his written post-hearing summary) that the ONLY use that would be allowed is limited to just that parking described. However, I do not interpret that resolution in any way as being a ruling by the City of Naples that would preclude other reasonable or customary uses that might later be permitted in PD (or already allowed in C1), as long as the parking was maintained to service those other properties within the spirit of Resolution 11-129128. Parking Area K remains a site zoned PD (Planned Development District), while Parking Area A remains a site apparently zoned Cl (Retail Shopping District). 5) Quoting from the PD definition, "The PD district is intended to accommodate integrated and well-designed developments in accordance with approved development plans. The district is intended to offer flexibility of design and to encourage imaginative, functional, high-quality land planning development which is compatible with adjacent and nearby lands and activities." "No specific list of uses permitted is established for the PD district. Land proposed for development under the PD district may contain a mixture of residential, commercial, recreational and other uses. Uses and residential densities in the PD district shall be limited by the future land use designation of the comprehensive plan. Where the comprehensive plan does not specify a limit on residential density, the PD district shall be limited to eight dwelling units per net acre for permanent residential units. Maximum density shall not apply to nursing homes, rest homes or group homes in a PD district, except that, when nursing homes include any units with kitchens or cooking facilities, the maximum density for such facilities shall be 18 units per net acre. There is no maximum density for transient lodging facilities in a PD district. Residential density within a PD district that covers more than one future land use category shall be calculated based on the land area within each category. 6) Quoting from the C 1 definition, "The C 1 district is intended to accommodate the city's prestige shopping areas and a limited amount of residential development. It is more restrictive and specialized than the C2 general commercial district." In the C 1 district, no building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, and all merchandise shall be stored and displayed in an enclosed building: -Small-scale retail sales establishments other than shopping centers. Retail sales establishments may include incidental processing, repair and rental activities except rental of motor vehicles which requires a conditional use, provided they are accessory and subordinate to the retail sales use, and provided that all storage, processing and repair of merchandise occurs within the principal building. -Art or photography studios. -Bakery, retail, with baking on the premises, with all baked goods sold at retail on the premises. -Convenience service establishments such as tailoring, garment alterations and repair, shoe repair and the like. -Cultural facilities, including libraries and museums, and publicly owned buildings. -Financial institutions, excluding drive-up windows, which are permitted only by conditional use petition approval. -Laundry or dry cleaning pickup establishments, with no laundering or dry cleaning on the premises. -Medical offices and clinics (not animal). -Parking lots, noncommercial, with no meters or on-site parking fee collection. -Personal service establishments such as barbershops or beauty shops. -Professional, business, financial, civic or public utility offices. -Restaurants, conventional, with or without cocktail lounges. Dancing or staged entertainment facilities are permitted only by conditional use petition approval. -Accessory uses or structures which are incidental to and customarily associated with the permitted uses in this district listed in subsections (1) through (12) of this section. 7) It is noted that parking garages and `commercial' parking lots are `conditional uses'within the Cl district, but parking lots, noncommercial, with no meters or on-site parking fee collection are `permitted' uses of the Cl code. 8) Mr. Thompson asserts in his post-hearing summary that the PAO "failed to consider a recorded encumbrance limiting the use of the Parking Parcels to servient parking use..." The PET never specifically asks the PAO if he did or did not consider the restriction. I listened to the audio file twice, and the PAO NEVER states he failed to consider the restrictions of the resolution. In his post-hearing commentary, Mr. Thompson notes that in tax years 2012 and 2013, the subject's total assessment (all 3 folios) was dramatically lower than in 2015. [So if using Mr. Thompson's logic, it begs the question, "Did the PAO consider the encumbrance in years 2012 & 2013, and has subsequently forget or disregarded them?"] The assessed portion is still capped to a maximum 10% increase for the non-school board portion. Regardless, each assessment year stands on its own merits. 9) Mr. Stephens and Mr. Wood both assert that it is unknown how the PET can contest the assessment in the manner they did without also appraising the related (but non- petitioned) improved properties that need the parking. In this particular case, there does appear to be merit to that argument (at least based upon the evidence I have to consider). 10) Mr. Stokes does not present any land sales or any improved sales at this hearing. He also does not present any Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach or any Income Approach. His analysis is based upon comparable assessments, and his assertion that a portion of the subject's assessment has been subject to double accounting by the PAO. In his methodology, Mr. Stokes does include both land and building assessments, as well as land and building areas in his comparative analysis. 11) It is interesting to note that the chart exhibit prepared by Mr. Stokes also includes the year built for various structures included in his analysis, along with the use(s) of each property. Of the 9 buildings tied to the subject's parking lot, four of them have a `residential' component (to some degree); whereas, NONE of the four other buildings have a residential component. Furthermore, the `year built' of four subject buildings are noted as 1956, 1962, 1961 and even 1918/68. The influence of this many older buildings (as compared to the '71-'85 years of construction for the 4 other buildings not tied to the subject's parking) COMBINED WITH the residential component could be influencing factors that impact the lower weighted average assessment/SF of building for those 9 buildings needing parking ($162.71/SF), as compared to the weighted average of the other 4 buildings that already have parking ($178.77/SF). This is a problem for the PET, as Mr. Stokes bases his entire analysis on slightly dissimilar data sets (i.e. one data set possibly weighted down with some older buildings that include a residential component not directly comparable enough to the other data set with slightly newer buildings without any residential component). The residential component alone could introduce different parking requirements that matter. Regardless, the combination of the two elements could be sufficient to explain the weighted average differences in the $/SF indicators from the two data sets. The addition of the substantial and additional land area (and assessed values) of the subject petitions then results in a weighted average of $225.93/SF, but also a far lower FAR (floor to area ratio) of 40.4% that helps to justify the discrepancy (and higher $/SF of building indicator). This helps to justify the argument by both Mr. Wood & Mr. Stephens that for the PET's argument to be valid, he would have to value all related interests to conclusively prove the assessment is excessive. In such case, the PET should have also petitioned those 9 other properties so that the PAO could have also defended them, as well. 12) Mr. Stephens indicates in his 25 years at Collier County, he has never seen any financial operating information that is requested every single year from this owner. Had that information been provided for 2015 (and/or prior years), it could have been persuasive in a lower assessment by the PAO, as the PAO could have then better considered the Income Approach with a far greater degree of reliability, given we are dealing with 139,858 SF of total building area affiliated with the subject's parking lots. 13) The PAO's assessment relating to the 3 folios petitioned was defended by the PAO only with the use of land value indicators, given the 3 petitioned folios do not have any rentable areas (just a small gazebo of no significance). The PAO has TP-355/360 assessed at $59.82/SF of land area, according to his land sales chart. The PAO has TP-367 assessed at $75/SF of land area. Given the PAO's ACTUAL land sales of $150.15/SF, $97.58/SF, parking lot sale of$86.80/SF, and tear-down indictor of $165.16/SF, it does not appear the PAO's assessments for a prime commercial location in Naples is unreasonable. 14) The PD zoning of Parking Area K states, "the maximum height of all commercial buildings shall be limited to 3 stories and 42 feet, measured from the 1st-floor FEMA elevation to the peak of the roof or the highest point of any appurtenance attached to the roof."Just because the only approved (thus far) use has been the surface parking does not necessarily mean at all that the City would not allow either a 2-story or 3-story garage that could still EASILY accommodate the existing number of stalls stipulated in Resolution 11-12928. It just means the subject's owner has not yet made any such request. It does not mean or imply the existing use is the H&BU at all. In fact on that topic, it is easy to look at certain laws to see how the written language may properly encompass the vast majority of properties being assessed, but certainly not all. By use of the PET's logic and quotation of the law, ONLY the permitted use should be would be assessed. Well that begs the questions (for the PD-zoned K parking lot only), "What if it was sitting where it is in its natural state covered with trees, yet still zoned PD & never yet approved for ANY use at all?" iven there are NO automatically approved uses at all within the quoted zoning definition of PD, should it be assessed for ZERO DOLLARS (as the PET would imply) only because its owner had not yet applied for any given use, even though it sits in one of the most desirable areas of Naples??? Herein lies the ABSURDITY OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION of certain laws, particularly with assessment language pertaining to LAND especially. The concept and literal interpretation of"immediate future uses" is also equally perplexing and often illogical when it comes to LAND. Often, the "immediate" H&BU is to do nothing but hold the property and wait. Obviously, that does not imply the land in those cases has no value at all. It is my interpretation that the term "immediate" use is far better applied to properties improved with existing buildings (such as a shopping center, office building, etc.). In the case of the subject parking lots, the only `improvements' to speak of relate to paving on some or most of the parcel in question. I would argue that it does not take excessively long to build an extra level of parking and it can be done or arranged so that it the work is performed out of season during low parking demand related to the adjacent properties. Basically, most commercial land acquisitions or valuations involve a little bit of time to get some type of building constructed. Thus, with respect to land in particular (or even parking lots in the subject's case), the literal interpretation of`immediate' is far less relevant and inappropriate when dealing with a PRIME commercial parcel in one of the most desirable sections of Collier County. 15) As it relates to the prior paragraph, I do not consider the possibility of adding some degree of deck parking to the subject to be unreasonable, nor contrary to assessment law as it pertains to this hearing. Just because the current owner may not have pursued it does not mean that buyers in the market would not consider it, and still be able to do it timely AND preserve the necessary parking in the spirit of Resolution 11-12928. Parking structures have become increasingly popular in areas of high land values. Architecturally speaking, their exterior elevations have also become much more attractive and less objectionable to neighbors with better fenestration features added. Simply stated, Resolution 11-12928 does NOT PROHIBIT the consideration of adding MORE PARKING at a later date. It states parking for the 9 buildings is to be provided. The resolution does NOT RESTRICT air rights on either parking area considered in this hearing. If so, it could have been deemed a form of`inverse condemnation' for which the owner could be warranted compensation. 16) While I did not solicit any commentary, I did read one post-hearing email with comments from each attorney to this hearing. Each has been submitted into evidence in Axia. 17) In summary, I am not suggesting that (if properly prepared and presented) the PET's arguments have no merit. What I am saying is that based upon the information provided at this hearing from both parties (and NO SALES WHATSOEVER from the PET), there has been insufficient proof to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. This ruling in no way questions the knowledge, professionalism, or competency of the Petitioner's agent or attorney. There COULD BE merit to support their contention that some degree of double accounting (or taxation) has taken place that might be inconsistent with the manner of taxation of other `like kind' properties in its area; HOWEVER, with this size of land, magnitude of 203,621 SF of buildings, and the complex nature of mixed-use data sets, it is a time-consuming & expensive process to prove. It may very likely require valuation of all related interests in the `full bundle of rights' associated with the petitioned AND non-petitioned folios. 18) The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld for each of the 3 folios considered. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00367 Parcel ID 14019880003 Petitioner name JULIAN STOKES Property 1135 3RD STS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ej Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. • 1. Just value, required 2,445,338.00 2,445,338.00 2,445,338.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 991,984.00 991,984.00 991,984.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 991,984.00 991,984.00 991,984.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/07/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/07/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Jack Redding, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Abe Skinner, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Julian Stokes (with ARC Realty Advisors), Mr. Stephen Thompson, Esq. (of Roetzel & Andress, LPA), and Ms. Barbara Walker (with Neapolitan Enterprises). It is noted that Mr. Stokes is not acting in the capacity as a licensed real estate appraiser at this hearing (even though he holds the MAI appraisal designation), but is acting in the capacity as a real estate broker/CCIM. PETITIONS HEARD TOGETHER / PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Three (3) different petitions are being heard together as one related appeal. These include Petitions 2015-355 & 360 [with contested just values of$4,391,572 & $2,004,509, respectively, for a total of$6,396,081], which are contiguous parking lots (referred to by the PET as "Parking Area K", and as "3rd Street Area Parking Lot" by the PAO), and Petition 2015-367 [with contested just value of$2,445,338], which is another parking area (with a small shelter/gazebo building and referred to as "Parking Area A" by the PET, and also "3rd Street Area Park and Parking Lot" by the PAO). Parking Area A is a block northeast of Parking Area K. All the subject parking areas are on prime real estate in downtown Naples in the 3rd Street shopping area. The combined just value of all 3 petitions is $8,841,419. The gazebo/band shell located on TP-367 (Parking Parcel A) is a small, non-enclosed structure with no walls, but it does have a metal roof. Its dimensions are 20' x 20', or 400 SF. This small building is situated upon a lot of 32,490 SF, or 0.746 acres, per the PAO's evidence. Petitions 2015-355 & 360 (i.e. Parking Area K) have a combined land area of 110,214 SF (2.53 acres), per the PAO's evidence. The grand total land area petitioned is 142,704 SF, or 3.276 acres. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted two related & very similar packets of information for the two separate areas (parking areas A and K). The PAO presents aerial photographs, ground level photographs of the subjects building/parking lot, building sketch of the gazebo, Cost Approach/Land Sales roster, map noting the location of comparable sales, the subject's building card information, cap rate information/trends, Costar vacancy/quoted rates, Loopnet asking price index, Bergstrom cap rates, and apartment cap rates. [Note: The market cap/rental/asking rate information is of no particular relevance to this hearing, yet the PAO includes it anyway]. In the Cost Approach, the PAO's main focus is on the valuation of the land, as the `improvements' consist of mainly paving (given value in the larger/combined Parking Area K only). The PAO provides an extensive list of 30 land sales/residuals and two land listings in and around the downtown general area. Most of the transactions are located along the Tamiami Trail corridor, but some are along (or west of) Goodlette-Frank Road North. Sale #1 (very close to the subject) is a very small site of 9,990 SF with a building that was later demolished, & it closed in 2011 for $150.15/SF of land area. Eleven (11) sales closed in 2013, while an additional 13 closed in 2014. Five of the PAO's land indicators closed during 15; thus, they are only considered for trending purposes. Mr. Stephens indicates true land sales in the area are extremely scarce; thus, he uses mainly `residual' indicators; whereby, the assessed value of the improvements is deducted from the sales price to get an indication of the land value. The PAO does note that his sale #3 ($44.73/SF) was a vacant lot, his sale #10 was a land sale ($97.58/SF), and his sale #12 is a parking lot ($86.80/SF). The PAO does provide a location map for his sales; however, the locations of his sales 19 & 25 are missing. The PAO notes that sale #25 had a commercial building upon it that was torn down, and then the land was converted into 3 single family lots for a land value indication of$165.16/SF (without considering demolition costs). In the PAO's land valuation of Parking Area K (i.e. petitions 355 & 360), he gives weight to $150/SF X a size adjustment of 50% for an indicator of$75/SF, then multiplies that by 110,214 SF for a land indicator of$8,266,050. The PAO then adds for the depreciated value of the paving improvements ($203,544), for a total Cost Approach indication for Parking Area K of$8,469,594 (in support of its combined assessment of $6,396,081). In the PAO's separate land valuation of Parking Area A (i.e. petition 367), he uses the same land sales and gives weight to $150/SF X a size adjustment of 75% for an indicator of$112.50/SF, then multiplies that by 32,490 SF for a land indicator of$3,655,125, which is his Cost Approach conclusion for Parking Area A. The PAO did not assign any additional value contribution for paving or the gazebo for this area. Combining the two pieces of the subject's value indicators, the PAO concludes the market supports a value of$11,921,175, which equates to a weighted average of$83.54/ SF. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a color shaded rendering of multiple blocks in the 3rd Street area. Various tenants are shown, along with blue shading for the subject's parking areas A & K that provide parking to the owner's various holdings in this area. The PET provided a small notebook with tabs at the hearing with their submitted evidence divided into 6 sections. The notebook contains 1) Mr. Stokes' expert report, 2) Florida Statutes, 3) Atlantic v. Turner case information, 4) DOR v. Morganwoods Greentree, Inc. info, 5) Home v. Dadeland Shopping Center info, and 6) Todora va. Venice Gold and Country Club #1 information. At the hearing, I accepted an additional (corrected) page from Mr. Stokes, which was his corrected reconciliation of value. That correction is basically a grid that was page 2 of his expert report letter in the first tab of the evidence notebook provided. Mr. Stokes summarizes the "retained value to parking component" figures applicable to the 3 petitions, as follows: TP-355 ($1,230,733), TP-360 ($563,025), and TP-367 ($1,366,532). Collectively, these 3 figures total $3,160,290, or $22.15/SF, based upon the combined site area of 142,704 SF. It is reiterated and noted that Mr. Stokes is not acting in the capacity as a licensed real estate appraiser at this hearing (even though he holds the MAI appraisal designation), but is acting in the capacity as a real estate broker/CCIM. In the first page of Mr. Stokes' letter dated November 19, 2015 to Ms. Walker (of Neapolitan Enterprises), he states, "Your contention is that the value of the parking lots has been collectively transferred to the improved properties located in the Third Street South Shopping District." In this ruling, I am continuing to quote Mr. Stoke's letter, as it conveniently summarizes the PET's position on the issues presented for my consideration and ruling at this VAB hearing. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Mr. Stoke's letter state, "The parking area are restricted by City of Naples Resolution 11-12928. This document specifically restricts (Section 2,Item 2.) to provide on-site parking for Buildings B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, as depicted on the site plan. The buildings make up the improved components of the Neapolitan Properties, currently used for restaurants, retail stores, offices, and apartments." Mr. Stoke's paragraph 3 states, "Subsequent to my analysis I am in agreement that the current assessment of the parking areas constitutes an over assessment due to much of the assessed value having been transferred to the improved commercial property components. However, I do not believe that the transfer of the value constitutes 100%." Mr. Stokes does an analysis of comparing the mixed use (office/apartment/retail) Neapolitan Properties to other retail/office properties in the immediate area. Essentially, Mr. Stokes contends the PAO has PARTIALLY double-accounted (i.e. partially double- assessed) the subject properties petitioned by a combined total dollar amount of $3,160,290 (revised upward via the correction from the original $2,996,784 figure). The corrected breakdown by Mr. Stokes for the $3,160,290 figure he thinks the subject should be assessed is $1,230,733 for TP-355, $563,025 for TP360, and $1,366,532 for TP 367, based upon the corrected exhibit he provided (and I accepted) at the hearing. Mr. Stokes noted the correction was necessary to equitably allocate the 13 surplus parking stalls to all 3 folios, as well as only allocate the `surplus land' component to only TP-367 (since that surplus land only applies to TP-367). RULING: 1) The PAO did establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. 2) Mr. Stokes appeared at this hearing as a real estate broker with his CRE and CCIM credentials, and not as an "MAI"/certified general appraiser (even though he has those qualifications). As Mr. Stokes is well aware, there are significant differences in the laws applicable to appraisers and the type of rules that apply to verbal or written representations of value. Mr. Stokes knows the local market very well, was a recent employee of the Collier County Property Appraiser's staff as Chief Deputy from 1/2010-8/2013, and he is accepted as an expert in real estate matters in Naples and Collier County. Late in the hearing, Mr. Stokes eludes to performing a verbal appraisal review (subject to Standard 3 of USPAP). Given Mr. Stokes appeared initially as a broker (not an appraiser), he should be very careful about switching "hats" in the middle of a recorded hearing. 3) There is no `unity of title' that specifically binds these subject parking areas to the nearby specific commercial properties they serve; however, it is acknowledged that the City of Naples officially recorded Resolution 11-12928 indirectly ties 341 parking stalls (i.e. 354 less 28 unallocated spaces) to specific `Neapolitan' properties within 600' of the subject parcels. That resolution is in response is in response to a `Conditional Use Petition 11-CU6' back in 2011. 4) Mr. Stokes states in verbal testimony (and Mr. Thompson, Esq. asserts in his written post-hearing summary) that the ONLY use that would be allowed is limited to just that parking described. However, I do not interpret that resolution in any way as being a ruling by the City of Naples that would preclude other reasonable or customary uses that might later be permitted in PD (or already allowed in C1), as long as the parking was maintained to service those other properties within the spirit of Resolution 11-129128. Parking Area K remains a site zoned PD (Planned Development District), while Parking Area A remains a site apparently zoned Cl (Retail Shopping District). 5) Quoting from the PD definition, "The PD district is intended to accommodate integrated and well-designed developments in accordance with approved development plans. The district is intended to offer flexibility of design and to encourage imaginative, functional, high-quality land planning development which is compatible with adjacent and nearby lands and activities." "No specific list of uses permitted is established for the PD district. Land proposed for development under the PD district may contain a mixture of residential, commercial, recreational and other uses. Uses and residential densities in the PD district shall be limited by the future land use designation of the comprehensive plan. Where the comprehensive plan does not specify a limit on residential density, the PD district shall be limited to eight dwelling units per net acre for permanent residential units. Maximum density shall not apply to nursing homes, rest homes or group homes in a PD district, except that, when nursing homes include any units with kitchens or cooking facilities, the maximum density for such facilities shall be 18 units per net acre. There is no maximum density for transient lodging facilities in a PD district. Residential density within a PD district that covers more than one future land use category shall be calculated based on the land area within each category. 6) Quoting from the C 1 definition, "The C 1 district is intended to accommodate the city's prestige shopping areas and a limited amount of residential development. It is more restrictive and specialized than the C2 general commercial district." In the C 1 district, no building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, and all merchandise shall be stored and displayed in an enclosed building: -Small-scale retail sales establishments other than shopping centers. Retail sales establishments may include incidental processing, repair and rental activities except rental of motor vehicles which requires a conditional use, provided they are accessory and subordinate to the retail sales use, and provided that all storage, processing and repair of merchandise occurs within the principal building. -Art or photography studios. -Bakery, retail, with baking on the premises, with all baked goods sold at retail on the premises. -Convenience service establishments such as tailoring, garment alterations and repair, shoe repair and the like. -Cultural facilities, including libraries and museums, and publicly owned buildings. -Financial institutions, excluding drive-up windows, which are permitted only by conditional use petition approval. -Laundry or dry cleaning pickup establishments, with no laundering or dry cleaning on the premises. -Medical offices and clinics (not animal). -Parking lots, noncommercial, with no meters or on-site parking fee collection. -Personal service establishments such as barbershops or beauty shops. -Professional, business, financial, civic or public utility offices. -Restaurants, conventional, with or without cocktail lounges. Dancing or staged entertainment facilities are permitted only by conditional use petition approval. -Accessory uses or structures which are incidental to and customarily associated with the permitted uses in this district listed in subsections (1) through (12) of this section. 7) It is noted that parking garages and `commercial' parking lots are `conditional uses'within the Cl district, but parking lots, noncommercial, with no meters or on-site parking fee collection are `permitted' uses of the Cl code. 8) Mr. Thompson asserts in his post-hearing summary that the PAO "failed to consider a recorded encumbrance limiting the use of the Parking Parcels to servient parking use..." The PET never specifically asks the PAO if he did or did not consider the restriction. I listened to the audio file twice, and the PAO NEVER states he failed to consider the restrictions of the resolution. In his post-hearing commentary, Mr. Thompson notes that in tax years 2012 and 2013, the subject's total assessment (all 3 folios) was dramatically lower than in 2015. [So if using Mr. Thompson's logic, it begs the question, "Did the PAO consider the encumbrance in years 2012 & 2013, and has subsequently forget or disregarded them?"] The assessed portion is still capped to a maximum 10% increase for the non-school board portion. Regardless, each assessment year stands on its own merits. 9) Mr. Stephens and Mr. Wood both assert that it is unknown how the PET can contest the assessment in the manner they did without also appraising the related (but non- petitioned) improved properties that need the parking. In this particular case, there does appear to be merit to that argument (at least based upon the evidence I have to consider). 10) Mr. Stokes does not present any land sales or any improved sales at this hearing. He also does not present any Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach or any Income Approach. His analysis is based upon comparable assessments, and his assertion that a portion of the subject's assessment has been subject to double accounting by the PAO. In his methodology, Mr. Stokes does include both land and building assessments, as well as land and building areas in his comparative analysis. 11) It is interesting to note that the chart exhibit prepared by Mr. Stokes also includes the year built for various structures included in his analysis, along with the use(s) of each property. Of the 9 buildings tied to the subject's parking lot, four of them have a `residential' component (to some degree); whereas, NONE of the four other buildings have a residential component. Furthermore, the `year built' of four subject buildings are noted as 1956, 1962, 1961 and even 1918/68. The influence of this many older buildings (as compared to the '71-'85 years of construction for the 4 other buildings not tied to the subject's parking) COMBINED WITH the residential component could be influencing factors that impact the lower weighted average assessment/SF of building for those 9 buildings needing parking ($162.71/SF), as compared to the weighted average of the other 4 buildings that already have parking ($178.77/SF). This is a problem for the PET, as Mr. Stokes bases his entire analysis on slightly dissimilar data sets (i.e. one data set possibly weighted down with some older buildings that include a residential component not directly comparable enough to the other data set with slightly newer buildings without any residential component). The residential component alone could introduce different parking requirements that matter. Regardless, the combination of the two elements could be sufficient to explain the weighted average differences in the $/SF indicators from the two data sets. The addition of the substantial and additional land area (and assessed values) of the subject petitions then results in a weighted average of $225.93/SF, but also a far lower FAR (floor to area ratio) of 40.4% that helps to justify the discrepancy (and higher $/SF of building indicator). This helps to justify the argument by both Mr. Wood & Mr. Stephens that for the PET's argument to be valid, he would have to value all related interests to conclusively prove the assessment is excessive. In such case, the PET should have also petitioned those 9 other properties so that the PAO could have also defended them, as well. 12) Mr. Stephens indicates in his 25 years at Collier County, he has never seen any financial operating information that is requested every single year from this owner. Had that information been provided for 2015 (and/or prior years), it could have been persuasive in a lower assessment by the PAO, as the PAO could have then better considered the Income Approach with a far greater degree of reliability, given we are dealing with 139,858 SF of total building area affiliated with the subject's parking lots. 13) The PAO's assessment relating to the 3 folios petitioned was defended by the PAO only with the use of land value indicators, given the 3 petitioned folios do not have any rentable areas (just a small gazebo of no significance). The PAO has TP-355/360 assessed at $59.82/SF of land area, according to his land sales chart. The PAO has TP-367 assessed at $75/SF of land area. Given the PAO's ACTUAL land sales of $150.15/SF, $97.58/SF, parking lot sale of$86.80/SF, and tear-down indictor of $165.16/SF, it does not appear the PAO's assessments for a prime commercial location in Naples is unreasonable. 14) The PD zoning of Parking Area K states, "the maximum height of all commercial buildings shall be limited to 3 stories and 42 feet, measured from the 1st-floor FEMA elevation to the peak of the roof or the highest point of any appurtenance attached to the roof."Just because the only approved (thus far) use has been the surface parking does not necessarily mean at all that the City would not allow either a 2-story or 3-story garage that could still EASILY accommodate the existing number of stalls stipulated in Resolution 11-12928. It just means the subject's owner has not yet made any such request. It does not mean or imply the existing use is the H&BU at all. In fact on that topic, it is easy to look at certain laws to see how the written language may properly encompass the vast majority of properties being assessed, but certainly not all. By use of the PET's logic and quotation of the law, ONLY the permitted use should be would be assessed. Well that begs the questions (for the PD-zoned K parking lot only), "What if it was sitting where it is in its natural state covered with trees, yet still zoned PD & never yet approved for ANY use at all?" iven there are NO automatically approved uses at all within the quoted zoning definition of PD, should it be assessed for ZERO DOLLARS (as the PET would imply) only because its owner had not yet applied for any given use, even though it sits in one of the most desirable areas of Naples??? Herein lies the ABSURDITY OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION of certain laws, particularly with assessment language pertaining to LAND especially. The concept and literal interpretation of"immediate future uses" is also equally perplexing and often illogical when it comes to LAND. Often, the "immediate" H&BU is to do nothing but hold the property and wait. Obviously, that does not imply the land in those cases has no value at all. It is my interpretation that the term "immediate" use is far better applied to properties improved with existing buildings (such as a shopping center, office building, etc.). In the case of the subject parking lots, the only `improvements' to speak of relate to paving on some or most of the parcel in question. I would argue that it does not take excessively long to build an extra level of parking and it can be done or arranged so that it the work is performed out of season during low parking demand related to the adjacent properties. Basically, most commercial land acquisitions or valuations involve a little bit of time to get some type of building constructed. Thus, with respect to land in particular (or even parking lots in the subject's case), the literal interpretation of`immediate' is far less relevant and inappropriate when dealing with a PRIME commercial parcel in one of the most desirable sections of Collier County. 15) As it relates to the prior paragraph, I do not consider the possibility of adding some degree of deck parking to the subject to be unreasonable, nor contrary to assessment law as it pertains to this hearing. Just because the current owner may not have pursued it does not mean that buyers in the market would not consider it, and still be able to do it timely AND preserve the necessary parking in the spirit of Resolution 11-12928. Parking structures have become increasingly popular in areas of high land values. Architecturally speaking, their exterior elevations have also become much more attractive and less objectionable to neighbors with better fenestration features added. Simply stated, Resolution 11-12928 does NOT PROHIBIT the consideration of adding MORE PARKING at a later date. It states parking for the 9 buildings is to be provided. The resolution does NOT RESTRICT air rights on either parking area considered in this hearing. If so, it could have been deemed a form of `inverse condemnation' for which the owner could be warranted compensation. 16) While I did not solicit any commentary, I did read one post-hearing email with comments from each attorney to this hearing. Each has been submitted into evidence in Axia. 17) In summary, I am not suggesting that (if properly prepared and presented) the PET's arguments have no merit. What I am saying is that based upon the information provided at this hearing from both parties (and NO SALES WHATSOEVER from the PET), there has been insufficient proof to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. This ruling in no way questions the knowledge, professionalism, or competency of the Petitioner's agent or attorney. There COULD BE merit to support their contention that some degree of double accounting (or taxation) has taken place that might be inconsistent with the manner of taxation of other `like kind' properties in its area; HOWEVER, with this size of land, magnitude of 203,621 SF of buildings, and the complex nature of mixed-use data sets, it is a time-consuming & expensive process to prove. It may very likely require valuation of all related interests in the `full bundle of rights' associated with the petitioned AND non-petitioned folios. 18) The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld for each of the 3 folios considered. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. J Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ▪ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00375 Parcel ID 54752000003 Petitioner name AMANDA L. BROCK, ESQ. Property 103 SAINT EUSTACIUS LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Eli taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34134 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.00 25(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,243,240.00 3,243,240.00 3,243,240.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,243,240.00 3,243,240.00 3,243,240.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,243,240.00 3,243,240.00 3,243,240.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages: as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/31/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Abe Skinner, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Ms. Amanda Brock, Esq. with Henderson Franklin Attorneys at Law, and Mr. Matthew Simmons (state certified residential appraiser). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: As of the assessment date, the subject was a vacant single family lot within the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision. The former improvements were removed from the site in November 2014. The lot area (verified by the PAO's mapping department) consists of 6,906 SF, or 0.159 acres. It is located at 103 Saint Eustacius Lane in Bonita Springs. The subject has an excellent view overlooking a common green space area with a common swimming pool, with the beach/sand of the Gulf of Mexico immediately beyond the pool. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$3,243,240. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, comparable sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map, and the subject's building card information. The PAO notes the subject recently sold for $1,900,000 on 3/7/2013. It was an estate sale purchased by the subject's next door neighbor (to the west). The former structure was subsequently demolished to improve the Gulf of Mexico view of the buyer's existing residence next door. The PAO concludes the subject's H&BU is for a single family residence. From the evidence and aerial photograph, this appears to be the logical use, which is also consistent with its recent use before the prior home was demolished in November 2014. At the hearing, I accepted additional evidence from the PAO. The first submittal was the tax roll sheet pertaining to the PAO's own sale #3 (103 Guadelopue Lane). The second submittal was the deed, listing history, and MLS `sold' information sheet and photographs relating to the PET's sale #4 at 104 Anguilla Lane indicating it was a `short sale' transaction, yet it also indicates it had at least 630 days on the market. It had been listed for $3.299M, but sold for $2.9M in 3/2015; thus, it was a listing on the assessment date. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 comparable `improved' sales. The PAO then makes a deduction for the assessed value pertaining to the improvements of each respective sale in an attempt to derive the `residual' land value/front foot (FF) of view indicators from each transaction. The PAO selects sales from the same sets of similar `horseshoe' configurations of homes around green space/common pool areas within the same subdivision. To a large extent, this makes sense, as the `bundles of rights' are quite similar with respect to each of the sales. However, this subdivision is somewhat unusual by modern site planning techniques that could have allowed for far greater consistency (almost "cookie-cutter") tracts with the same width of common areas, also with far greater consistency in lot areas. Unfortunately, each little grouping of homes that surrounds a pool/green area is different from the others. There are 11 `horseshoe' groupings in this development of the subject's type that are similar, yet slightly different. As stated, the PAO derives `residual' land value per front foot (FF) of view indicators from each transaction. The PAO's math associated with his conclusions was anything but obvious; thus, I offer an example using Sale #1 as a means of explanation (based upon the PAO's testimony). Sale #1 sold for $4.4M, but a $1,229,077 improvement assessment portion of that sale was deducted for a resulting `residual' land value indication of$3,170,923. The PAO apparently has a 52.5 `effective' FF indicator for that sale, so $3,170,923 / 52.5 = $60,399/FF, which is then divided by the `site size depth factor' for this property of 0.76, resulting in a "net price per front foot" [NP/FF] indicator of$79,472. The NP/FF for the subject (based upon its assessment of $3,243,240) is $54,000, via the same math gyrations, and it is the NP/FF figure that is used at the `basis for comparison' between the subject and all five of the PAO's sales. While quite confusing and less than evident in presentation, the PAO indicates this methodology is grounded in valuation theory for irregularly shaped lots. That is why the PAO uses the `effective' front foot factor in lieu of the actual front foot factor for these irregularly shaped lots. It can be thought of as a mathematical way to help `square out' the lot. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at the hearing by his evidence and testimony. The Petitioner (PET) provides a residential appraisal (as of 1/1/2015), for the subject, as prepared by Mr. Matthew Simmons (state certified residential appraiser). His value was $2,675,000. His appraisal provides 9 comparables (8 sales and 1 active listing). Comp 4 was actually a listing for $3.299M on the assessment date that ultimately closed in 3/2015 for $2.9M as a `short sale' transaction after at least 630 days on the market. Comp 9 was noted to be an active listing in the appraisal. PET's sale #1 is located next door to the subject and it was actually a vacant lot at the time of sale. Most of the PET's comparables were improved with homes on the assessment date, which was an unavoidable problem also shared by the PAO, given this highly unique type of property. PET's sale #8 was a 2012 sale. RULING: The nature Barefoot Beach lot shapes, views, depths, and square feet tend to be very complicated. In the analysis of the data, there are many interrelated issues that come into play in the minds of buyers and sellers when making comparisons. This presents extreme challenges in the mass appraisal process, as well when not using mass appraisal techniques. It becomes difficult to just use one and only one technique when reviewing the data, particularly given the majority of the comparable data available to both the PAO & the PET had homes/structures in place at the time of sale. While the PET's appraiser is very familiar with the subject's immediate area, his analysis did not appear to sufficiently account for the irregular lot shapes and did not sufficiently consider multiple physical indicators of comparison. The PET also does not sufficiently account for the appreciation factor taking place. The PAO notes 1.99%/ month appreciation, based upon an example. Regardless, this ruling (and apparently the PAO's assessment) gives weight to the appreciating trends of the data & market up to the assessment date, given many of the sales used a the hearing were slightly older (i.e not with a few months of the assessment date, but earlier in 2014, etc.). The nature of the data and market sales often will not always provide clear and highly consistent indicators in any one specific indicator type; thus, the weight and direction of multiple indicators should have also been considered. I carefully considered the evidence provided by both parties, as well as rebuttal evidence supplied at the hearing. From the evidence and testimony, it appears most logical to give greater weight to a.) comparables that share the same `horse shoe' green space/pool/view, b.) sales with the most similar front feet, c.) sales with the most similar square feet (if it can be readily determined from what was provided), d.) `common' sales (or just 1 sale in this case) that are used by BOTH the PAO & the PET. Interestingly enough, the PAO provides 5 sales and the PET provides 6, yet they only have one sale in common (106 Kaula). Comparables on the same `horse shoe' are PAO's sales #1, #2, and PET Sale #1 (using the PET's fully adjusted price indicator). The subject has an assessment of$496/SF, which is highly supported on a SF basis by these 3 comps ($728, $467, and $927 per square foot, respectively.). On a $/effective front foot basis, the subject is assessed at $42,120/FF, based upon 77 effective front feet. These same 3 comps provide $/FF indicators of$60,399, $59,290, and $46,960, which are also supportive of the PAO's assessment. Sales with the most similar effective front feet tend to be PAO's Sale #3 (83 FF), PET's sales 2 (64 FF) and #3 (69 FF). Because PET's sale #4 was a short sale [as indicated by the PAO], its 82 feet is close to the subject's, but all of its indicators tend to be out of line with all remaining sales, so it is not considered reliable. The $/FF indicators of PAO's sale #3 was $44,904, while PET's sales #2 and #3 were $40,470 and $39,510, respectively (using the PET's fully adjusted prices for those two sales). Those three $/FF figures bracket & are very close to the PAO's assessment per FF of$42,120. It should also be noted that PET's sale #1 is less than 42% of the subject's size in square feet. The subject has 6,906 SF, per the PAO's testimony, as verified with their mapping department. Sales with the most similar square feet appear to be PAO's Sales #2 (6,098 SF) and (visually) PAO's Sale #3. The land area (SF) size of PAO Sale #3 is not in evidence, but visually it appears to be in the 3rd lot position from the beach (like the subject) and also on the south side of the `horse shoe' (like the subject. From the Comparable Sales Map exhibit that shades the subject in red and the sales in blue, 103 Guadeloupe Lane (PAO Sale #3) appears to be extremely similar in size. The PAO's abstracted land value from that sale was $3,727,008. The subject's assessment is 87% of that figure, which is quite close to the 15% discount noted in the PAO's DR-493 for the Collier 2015 tax year. The PAO's Sale #3 becomes more interesting and significant when it is further analyzed by reviewing the PET's rebuttal evidence supplied and accepted by me at the hearing. That evidence includes the MLS sheet for all sales, but this Sale #3 by the PAO demonstrates a key issue of this type of lot, because it allows SUFFICIENT FOOTPRINT AREA, to build a large home with ample on-site parking. Sale #3's MLS sheet indicates room for 7 cars (equating to 2,366 SF of garage space in the PAO's tax roll sketch). Among the sales that do not front busier Barefoot Beach Road and excluding the short sale (PET sale #4), it would seem that having the extra ground floor footprint (i.e. greater SF of land area) is an asset allowing for greater building design flexibility in the home that can ultimately be built. The PET frequently uses the `surplus land' terminology in the hearing. I do not agree that surplus land (as defined by the Appraisal Institute's Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal) exists in the larger site sales entertained at this hearing. On the contrary, a review of the aerial photos demonstrates the exact opposite (i.e. almost every available square foot of ground floor space is utilized to the maximum ability, subject to setbacks and pervious area requirements of the building code). The common sale used by both the PAO & the PET was the sale of 106 Kaula. Its sales price (after deducting the building value based upon its assessment) was $2,503,936. Its lot area is apparently less than half of the subject's land area, and its effective front feet of 48.1' is just 62.5% of the subject's 77' of front feet (facing the Gulf of Mexico). Based upon the physical attributes of the subject, it is logical the subject's assessment would be significantly greater than the $2,503,936 land indicator from this common sale used by both parties to the hearing. In conclusion, the PET's appraiser does a good job of presenting his case for a reduction. This is an extremely difficult and complex situation to analyze with any degree of confidence, given so many different variables. It would appear that some of the PET's problems in analyzing the data is because of limited (and sometimes distorted) public information available from the PAO's web site, as it often uses SF and FF factors that are `adjusted' in various ways that are not readily known or explained to the public. The PAO's grid (as originally presented) was also difficult to comprehend, as the math used was not shown in the PAO's sales grid. When it was explained verbally at the hearing, it made more sense. The PAO should go to far greater lengths to clarify their presentation to clearly demonstrate how various numbers are derived and used to produce the unit(s) of comparison. This is a case where good appraisers can have different opinions regarding the interpretation of the market data, the physical data, and the applicability of techniques. I do consider the PAO's methodology to be reasonable for producing credible results in this complicated case. Much of the PAO's methodology relates to `squaring out' an irregular lot shape to be able to provide some meaningful constancy in the assessment process. As even the PET acknowledged at the hearing, situations like this are not easy do deal handle in the assessment process. This is a case where the `weight and preponderance of the evidence' slightly favors the PAO, albeit not by a great deal. There are certainly some valid arguments that can be made to support some degree of a reduction, due to imperfect/highly irregular lots, an imperfect market, and relatively few `true' vacant land sales resulting in the forced need to use improved sales and then `back out' improvements. After reviewing the entire audio recording and analyzing the data from the hearing in multiple ways, it is recommended to uphold the PAO's assessment of$3,243,240 should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 tt*. County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00379 Parcel ID 66674377006 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS Property 7226 TORYLN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,330,725.00 4,330,725.00 4,330,725.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,938,239.00 2,938,239.00 2,938,239.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,938,239.00 2,938,239.00 2,938,239.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values 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 PAO's assessment is upheld, as the PET did not attend the hearing, did not submit any evidence, and did not provide any just cause for non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance. Conclusions of Law Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00382 Parcel ID 37063480009 Petitioner name ROCCO TATASCIORE Property 720 13THSTNW The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition IA Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 545,828.00 545,828.00 500,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 545,828.00 545,828.00 500,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 545,828.00 545,828.00 500,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/30/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier county. The evidence included: listing and sales history of subject property including testimony as to property condition while listed for sale. Property Appraiser failed to present sufficient evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011 F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Property Appraiser did not establish a presumption of correctness. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value. Conclusions of Law: Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$500,000. [12D-9.027(2)(a), F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 tiga DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00386 Parcel ID 07333000327 Petitioner name MITCHELL, JAMES MARGARET C Property 1380 GREAT EGRET TRL The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34105 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,282,955.00 5,282,955.00 5,282,955.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,007,878.00 5,007,878.00 5,007,878.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,957,878.00 4,957,878.00 4,957,878.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/30/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable improved property and land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. J Effective 11/12 DEPARDAENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. I These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00394 Parcel ID 00384600003 Petitioner name SPERO N KOPITAS Property 3400 RADIO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Ej taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,258,275.00 4,258,275.00 4,258,275.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,258,275.00 4,258,275.00 4,258,275.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,258,275.00 4,258,275.00 4,258,275.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. This hearing was heard November 13th, even though the scheduled date is November 16th, yet the Petitioner was not going to attend anyway. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a multi-tenant office (with some limited retail) complex consisting of 4 buildings. The subject is located at (and wraps the SE corner of) Radio Road and Airport-Pulling Road South in Naples. The subject was originally built in 1986. The subject has 62,786 SF of building area. The site consists of 233,481 SF (i.e. 5.36 acres). The Petitioner is requesting an assessment of$2M, as compared to the PAO's just value assessment of$4,258,275. The PAO stated he reduced the subject's assessment approximately $500K from 2014, due to some of the subject's vacancy issues. The PAO notes that the subject should probably not have vacancy issues, as it is probably more likely related to a management problem. The PAO prepared all 3 traditional approaches to value. The PAO submitted building card/sketch data, an aerial photograph, a land sales map, impact fee support, and a detailed Marshall Valuation cost summary. The PAO also includes cap rate and general rental information. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $18/SF + impact fees ($693,728) for a total land/impact fees value indication of$4,896,386 (not $3,028,538 as reported by the PAO). The depreciated value of the improvements, plus that land/ /impact fees equates to $9,150,507 (after correcting the PAO's math error). The PAO presents a roster of 11 land sales/residual indicators along the Airport-Pulling Road corridor. The PAO's land value estimate does appear reasonable from the data provided. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 17 sales dating back to 8/2011. The subject's total assessment equates to $71.39/SF of building area; however, the lowest price/SF of all sales is $121.47. The sale dates, land-to-building ratios, photographs, and location map for the comparable sales were not provided. Some of the PAO's sales do appear to be superior in the sense that some are medical-oriented buildings. The PAO estimates the subject's value at $100/SF X 62,786 SF, or $6,278,600, which is well below the low end of the sales provided, as the PAO was trying to account for greater vacancy by going below the low end of the range. In the Income Approach, the PAO did not have the benefit of the owner's rent roll & operating data at the time the evidence was prepared. Thus, the PAO only presents the "typical income" (i.e. market) scenario. The PAO projects rents at $12/SF, vacancy 25%, and expenses at 35%. The PAO applies a loaded 8.5% OAR, resulting in an Income Approach value indictor of$4,321,153. It is noted the PAO does provide supplemental market information. The Costar average Collier office vacancy rate is indicated at 11.1%, with an average quoted office rental rate of$20.39/SF. The average asking Collier office price per square foot is $185.80, with a Florida average asking price of $132.59. All of the PAO's corresponding projections (and assessment) for the subject are far less aggressive than these averages provided by those data services. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a well- supported Cost Approach for this specialized property type, as well as conservative conclusions in both the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The Petitioner (PET) also a Cost Approach and an Income Approach. Given the Petitioner's agent is located in Chicago and given there are no photographs or other evidence to suggest otherwise, it does not appear the PET inspected the subject property. The PET is requesting an assessment of$2M (i.e. $31.85/SF of building area), which is less than half of the PAO's (fairly well supported) land value + impact fee estimate of $4,896,728. The PET's rent roll indicates 55.57% vacancy, which does not appear anywhere close to normal market vacancy. The PET projects rents at $9/SF, yet the rent roll presented by the PET shows actual rents attained are $12/SF or more in many cases. The PET's Cost Approach conclusion of$6M IS SUPPORTIVE of the PAO's assessment, and it is even low, as it is based upon a land input [i.e. the PAO's administrative breakdown component of land] of$2,218,070. The PET fails to include market-supported land value, which would have been much higher, if not double (based upon the PAO's presentation). And furthermore before getting to the $6M Cost Approach conclusion, the PET made as $232,837 deduction for functional incurable obsolescence, as well as an external obsolescence deduction of$1,354,897. There is no mention, reasoning, or explanation of the logic used for these two highly questionable adjustments. RULING: the PAO estimated land value + impact fees equates to $4,896,386, which is more than sufficient to justify the contested value of$4,258,275. Thus, the PAO did establish and maintain the presumption of correctness. The PET's presentation is poorly prepared and fails to be based upon logic and reasoning normally used in the appraisal process. It would appear that the subject's vacancy problems could very possibly be due to poor management or non-prudent ownership reasons, as all market indicators suggest the subject's value should be far in excess of the $2M request by the PET. If there was data to suggest that the subject's value is $31.85/SF of building area (or $8.57/SF of land area), then the PET should have been able to demonstrate market sales data to prove buyers and sellers are trading this type of property for such low price levels. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00398 Parcel ID 68980000609 Petitioner name JEFFREY BAREFOOT Property 5036 GROVELAND TER The petitioner is: j taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary RI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,476,549.00 1,337,258.00 1,337,258.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,476,549.00 1,337,258.00 1,337,258.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,476,549.00 1,337,258.00 1,337,258.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/19/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/20/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: comparable sales data in the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 • VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00403 Parcel ID 00436560004 Petitioner name PARADIGM TAX GROUP Property 8230 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34114 ['other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,764,051.00 4,764,051.00 4,764,051.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,764,051.00 4,764,051.00 4,764,051.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,764,051.00 4,764,051.00 4,764,051.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 01/05/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 01/05/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. Gary Appel, Esq. with the Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is referred to as "Kountry Kampinn" by the PAO. The subject is also known as "Naples Gardens". The subject is an RV park primarily consisting of pads (approximately 161), but it also has 8 cottage rentals. The park also has an office, pool, recreation center, picnic area, and common restrooms. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$4,764,051. The prior sale of the subject was for $5,011,600, on December 15, 2011. Thus, the 2015 assessment equates to 95.1% of its prior sale slightly more than three years ago. The subject is located immediately south of the hospital on the east side of Collier Boulevard. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a valuation summary of approaches, color aerial photo, comparable sales location map, Cost Approach (with land residual sales and multi-family land sales), Sales Comparison Approach, Income Approach, impact fee support (via email), cap rate support, Costar rental and vacancy rates for SW Florida, Loopnet asking price index, Bergstrom Cap rate survey, apartment cap rate survey, and the subject's building card information. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents 3 land sales (the subject's prior sale in 2011, the Naples RV resort in 2011, and Southwind Village (mobile home & RV park) in 2013. Those three sales result in a tight range of `$/unit' indicators between $22,611 - $27,071. The PAO then provides 5 multi-family land sales from 2012-14, plus one land listing (of an assisted/independent living site). Again, the PAO derives $/unit indicators that are supportive of the $23,000/unit conclusion by the PAO. He then multiplies this by 181 sites and adds impact fees for a land value indication of$4,695,126. Next the PAO adds for the depreciated value of the site work, pool & other amenity features ($1,053,692) for a total Cost Approach indication of$5,748,818. At the hearing, Mr. Quinby revised this figure to $5,472,000, based upon a lower unit count of 165 units. It is noted that the unit (i.e. pad) count for this type of development can change over time, given it is easy to reconfigure (or combine) sites to allow for different sizes of RV's, and make site plan changes for amenities, etc. In reference to the land valuation, one could question the PAO equating RV `unit' land indicators with conventional apartment `units' or assisted/independent living, as they may not necessarily be the same. The PAO does not provide any land area indications for the sales, so it is not possible to derive $/SF (or $/acre) indicators. The PAO does not provide details relating to the subject's zoning details. The PAO also does not appear to apply any type of time adjustment to the older (pre-2014 especially) lands. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 comparable sales. The subject's prior sale in 2011 is indicated as sale #2 (based upon 181 units). The PAO then concludes $30,000/unit ($5.43M) from the data, then deducts $84,435 in TPP for a final Sales Comparison Approach value indication of$5,345,565. The PAO does not provide any back-up documentation related to any of his sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO presents a `typical' (i.e. intended to mean `market') presentation using $40/day X 181 pads X 365 days/year for PGI of$2,642,600. Vacancy of 50% is deducted along with 60% expenses for an NOI indication of$528,520. The PAO then applies a loaded OAR of 9.2% and then deducts $84,435 in TPP for a `typical' Income Approach value indication of$5,660,348. Mr. Stephens indicates the PAO's office later received the subject's operating information after the VAB process started, so he also shows an `actual' income Approach indication. It is based upon EGI of$793,451, expenses of$401,786, for an NOI of$391,665. He then applies the same OAR and makes the same TPP deduction for a final `actual' Income Approach conclusion of $4,172,796. Near the end of his presentation, Mr. Stephens indicated his office would be re-visiting the site to verify some structures (cottages) that they do not currently have on the tax rolls. He indicates the subject's web site advertises the cottages, which are a different revenue source different from strictly renting pads. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at the hearing by his evidence and testimony, yet the back-up documentation is weak and there could be some other structures and/or revenue sources the PAO had not previously know about or consider. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) provides a cover letter, subject's information from the PAO's web site (with sale history, permit history, assessment breakdown, building ages, etc.), color aerial, 1-page Income Approach exhibit, recent (2015) rents, rent rolls (as of 1/2014 & 1/2015), expense support (expense comparables not specifically identified, other than by county, although #3 apparently is the subject), 2014 profit & loss statements (for several unidentified properties), 2014 profit & loss for the subject, expense study form an unidentified appraisal in Sumter County (in central FL) prepared by an unknown appraiser, TPP for a non-subject property (of no relevance to this hearing), Realty Rates OAR support for 1st Qtr 2015 for RV/camp grounds, Colliers International MHC report for 2st Qtr 2015, and a variety of Costar vacant land sales sheets from 2013/14. The PET also includes information regarding Florida Statutes, the DOR, and case law. At the hearing, I accepted a color site plan from the PET, as it best portrays the physical layout of the development. It does show 169 pad locations, with 8 red sites indicated to be `cottage rentals'. The PET confirmed that the subject's prior sales price was for just this property (i.e. the recorded consideration was not applicable to another property the owner also purchased at the same time). The PET also confirmed the subject was stabilized when it sold. In the Income Approach, the PET presents a 1-page pro-forma exhibit, which is based upon 165 `units' (the PAO had originally used 181). The PET classifies tenants into 3 types (long-term, mid-term, and short-term), each with their respective monthly rental rates. The PET indicates there are actually 169 pads, but 4 are reserved for management and maintenance staff, so there are 165 rentable. However, of the 169, 8 are `cottage rentals', as identified on the PET's site plan provided at the hearing. Regardless, with the 165 units, the PET estimates PGI of$1,257,132 (i.e. $20.87/available unit/day), 50% vacancy, 7.5% [of PGI] miscellaneous income, $722,851 EGI, 40% expenses ($289,140), for a resulting NOI of$433,711. The PET then applies a loaded OAR of 9.21%, less TPP of$84,435, for a value indication of$4,625,781. The PET then makes a 15% COS deduction of$693,867, resulting in a requested taxable value of$3,931,914. The PET was questioned about the physical nature of the cottages, as well as the revenue from cottage rentals in the PET's pro-forma Income Approach, and it does NOT appear that revenue source is included. The PAO indicates the subject's web site does provide rental information by low season, mid season, and peak season. In low season, Mr. Stephens indicates the cottages rent for prices up to $139/day, up to $182/day in mid season, and $900/week in high season. The PAO indicates the subject's web site states a typical pad rents for $41/day in low season, $46/day in mid season, and $373/week in peak season. The PAO also notes the subject advertises premium lots (generally for longer/larger RV's), as opposed to standard lots. The site plan also does show smaller pads and elongated pads, which supports the PAO's comments. From the PAO's testimony regarding the subject's web site asking rents by different seasons, it would appear that the subject's PGI would greatly exceed the PET's estimated PGI of$1,257,132 (i.e. $20.87/day), given the lowest asking pad rent (out of season) is basically double the PET's average daily rate. Furthermore, the PET's evidence showing the subject's 2014 actual profit & loss information demonstrates the subject's EGI was almost $70,000 MORE THAN the $722,851 indicated by the PET's pro-forma. The combination of the subject's published daily rates, lack of consideration for cottage rentals, and proof if significantly higher revenue generation exhibited by the subject's actual operations all combine to undermine the credibility of the PET's Income Approach presentation. In the PET's land valuation, he presents a variety of land sales sheets from Costar. That data indicates $/SF indicators for various sales, yet many of the transactions were bought by conventional home builders. The densities or unit count build-outs of the tracts are unknown, impact fees may not be included, site work may not be in place at all, and the data is not summarized or adjusted for meaningful comparison with the subject's current status. There is no land value conclusion,just land value presentation. There is no Cost Approach progression to add the land value to the depreciated value of the improvements now in place. RULING: Projecting the income performance of this type of property is similar to trying to project income for a hotel. This is because there are multiple unit types that can be rented, and also there are seasonal fluctuations that can result in two or three `tiers' of rates, depending upon the time of year involved. It would be recommended that the PAO visit this property soon to make more accurate accounting of the physical real property in place, and to assure all improvements are accounted for in their assessment an building card information. In addition, future assessments should account for the appropriate revenue sources, the correct number of rentable product types for each, and possible seasonal fluctuations in revenue. The PAO's `typical income' approach appears more in line with the subject's actual earning capacity, as at least the PAO's revenue is based upon $40/day, which is the bare minimum level of`low' season rent for a standard pad. The PAO's land value and subsequent Cost Approach value appears supportive (if not conservative) to support the assessment. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach shows a variety of sales (including the subject's prior sale), as well as sales and listings from inferior parts of Florida that support the assessment. The PET's Income Approach appears incomplete with regarding the inclusion of all income sources, plus it substantially understates the EGI of the 2014 profit and loss statement from the subject. The 2015 assessment appears to be consistent with the prior purchase price of the subject in late 2011, with some degree of mild appreciation considered. It is also apparent there additional revenue sources (and possible building areas) that are now in place. They were put there by the current owner and that those additional areas should also be investigated by the PAO and assessed. After reviewing the entire audio recording and analyzing the data from the hearing in multiple ways, it is recommended to uphold the PAO's assessment of$4,764,051 should be upheld. The weight and preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO, who presents all three approaches to value. The PET presents one approach to value, yet it has significant deficiencies. The PET's presentation of land sales is inconclusive and not summarized into any meaningful indication of value for comparison with the assessment. The PAO's assessment appears to be sufficiently supported by his Cost Approach [and basically the land value]. The Cost Approach could in fact increase, should it be proven that more building improvements (i.e. 8 cottages) are now in place. The owner of the property is supposed to provide operating data when requested during the year by the PAO, and not later wait to provide it at a VAB hearing and try to then use it against the PAO. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. • These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00422 Parcel ID 57804280008 Petitioner name JENNIFER M. TENNEY, ESQ. Property 1611 COLLINGSWOODCT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record j taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,888,057.00 3,888,057.00 3,888,057.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,888,057.00 3,888,057.00 3,888,057.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,838,057.00 3,838,057.00 3,838,057.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] ▪ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/19/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/20/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable sales data in the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA pA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00423 Parcel ID 58111640000 Petitioner name JENNIFER M. TENNEY, ESQ. Property 1589 HEIGHTS CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,105,356.00 5,105,356.00 3,461,144.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,448,376.00 4,448,376.00 3,461,144.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,448,376.00 4,448,376.00 3,461,144.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/19/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/20/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The evidence included: Builder of homes in the area provided actual costs to build this home. In addition, was able to speak to comparable data used by PAO in their appraisal and well explained and supported a reduction. Property Appraiser failed to present sufficient evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011 F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Property Appraiser did not establish a presumption of correctness. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value. Conclusions of Law: Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$3,461,144. [12D-9.027(2)(a), F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. F LORI DA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Ad ministrative Code e Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier p These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00425 Parcel ID 78695209468 Petitioner name CLARK, DAVID M Property 1612 BIRDIEDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 238,603.00 238,603.00 238,603.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 199,748.00 199,748.00 199,748.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 199,748.00 199,748.00 199,748.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196,031(7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer 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 ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or acid pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 12/29/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner is David Clark who owns residential property located at 1612 Birdie Drive, Naples, Florida. The Petition was filed because the property was not granted a homestead exemption. Mr. Clark did not appear for the hearing but did indicate that he wanted his evidence considered. That evidence consisted of an email and was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 without objection. The Property Appraiser ("PA") was represented by Anabel Ybaceta, Director, Exemptions Department, and Jennifer Earle, of Homestead Exemptions Department. The PA presented fifteen pages of evidence which was admitted without objection as PA Composite Exhibit 1. David Clark is not a permanent resident of the State of Florida. His birth country is the United Kingdom. (PA Ex. 1) Petitioner has a Florida Driver's License; however that license is currently suspended and the license lists Petitioner as a non-immigrant. (PA Ex. 1) Petitioner has not filed an application for homestead exemption on the property. The property receives a 10% tax exemption as non-homestead property (Ybaceta). The property was recently listed for lease at a monthly rent of$2200. (PA Ex. 1, MLS listing) Conclusions of Law: The homestead exemption originates in Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const., which states in pertinent part: "Every person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another legally or naturally dependent upon the owner, shall be exempt from taxation thereon. . . upon establishment of right thereto in the manner prescribed by law. . .." Section 196.031(1), F. S., implements this provision and states that "[E]very person who has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who resides thereon and in good faith makes the same his or her permanent home, or the permanent home of another or others legally or naturally dependent upon said person, shall be entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . .." In order to qualify for a homestead exemption the homeowner must permanently reside on the property. Moreover, s. 196.011(1), Fla. Stat., requires that a person seeking such an exemption must make application on or before March 1 of any calendar year subject to further conditions or exceptions set forth in subsections (7) and (8). In the instant case, Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen and does not reside permanently on the subject property. Petitioner made no assertion to the contrary and the PA's evidence was competent and credible to establish this fact. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a homestead exemption. Equally important is the statutory requirement of application. While the law does permit a late filing, an application must be made. See Fla. Atty. Gen. Op. 2001-83. In the absence of an application, the Value Adjustment Board and its magistrate, cannot grant an exemption. In this case Petitioner failed to apply for a homestead exemption. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property's Appraiser's action is wrong and that Petitioner is entitled to the exemption otherwise denied him by the PA. Because Petitioner failed to apply there is no denial of an application to review. Consequently, as a matter of law, the petition must fail. Even assuming that application was not necessary, Petitioner has failed to provide any credible or relevant evidence establishing that the property qualifies as his permanent residence thereby supporting his petition and ultimate entitlement to the exemption. It is therefore this Special Magistrate's recommendation that the Petition be denied. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00426 Parcel ID 22435003061 Petitioner name CLARK, DAVID M Property 1258 KENDARI TER The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.00 25(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 365,898.00 353,867.00 353,867.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 225,726.00 225,726.00 225,726.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 225,726.00 225,726.00 225,726.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/25/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Gaylord Wood (legal counsel to the PAO), & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The PAO officials were previously sworn in under Petition 2015-635. The Petitioner (PET) is Mr. David Clark; however, he did not attend the hearing, but did submit an email requesting his evidence be considered. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 2007, and it is located on a dry, corner lot within the Artesia Naples subdivision. It is located at 1258 Kendari Terrace in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 2,294 SF. The subject has a screen-enclosed pool/spa and a 2-car garage. Apparently, the screened pool and spa were added after 2010. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$353,867. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. At the hearing, I also accepted into evidence a listing from MLS of the subject for $399,000 that expired on 6/15/2014. It has additional details about the subject, as well as additional photographs. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $2,500/front foot (FF), which is inclusive of impact fees that run with the land. The PAO provides 4 `residual' land sale indicators, based upon improved sales with the removal of the improved assessed portions of each respective sale. The resulting lot value of the subject is $161,393. The PAO provides a location map for the sales. The PAO then adds site improvements ($15,000) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($253,804) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$430,197. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales from the immediate neighborhood (all within a 3-block radius). This particular neighborhood has experienced some turmoil, due to developer problems and the past recession. Some of the PUD amenities remained incomplete for a long period of time, but the health of the subdivision has recently improved and the amenities are now being built. The subject happens to be a larger home located on a larger corer lot; whereas, all 4 of the improved sales are a little smaller (1,739-1,789 adjusted SF), located on smaller lots that do not allow room for a pool, yet all sales were built in either 2007 or 2008. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$400,000, which is basically equivalent to its 6/15/2014 expired list price of$399,000. The Petitioner (PET) provides only a very brief defense without any specific market proof to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The PET's email states the subject "cannot compare to the new builds that always sell for more." That argument does not appear to correct, given 3 of the PAO's improved sales were built in 2007 (like the subject), and PAO sale #4 was built in 2008. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. RULING: I give weight to the PAO's fully adjusted price indicators of his sales #1 and #2, as well as the recent (expired) listing of the subject for $399,000 as supportive of the subject's assessment of$353,867. Because the PET does not provide any `market' evidence whatsoever to refute the PAO's assessment, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: The PET failed to attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting his evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 • VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00430 Parcel ID 67342040004 Petitioner name DEVITO, ANDREW P SUSAN L Property 230 TUPELORD The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34108 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition J Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,508,629.00 2,508,629.00 2,491,867.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,508,629.00 2,508,629.00 2,491,867.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,458,629.00 2,458,629.00 2,441,867.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Petitioner (PET) first had a 'substantial completion' hearing with an attorney magistrate. Subsequently, this valuation hearing was deemed necessary. This valuation petition was originally heard on November 24, 2015. At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Gaylord Wood (legal counsel to the PAO), & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. & Mrs. De Vito at the 11/24/2014 hearing, yet it was not necessary for them to attend the follow-up continuation hearing on 12/14/2015 (as will be explained). Simply stated, this case is one of a disagreement on the subject's building size. Given it is brand new construction, the blueprints were available from the Collier County Building Department. In my remand, the PAO was instructed to field verify exterior building dimensions, as well as determine whether the 2nd floor `storage' area is actually non-air conditioned space, as claimed by the PET. [It was verified to be non-air conditioned, but finished. The PAO now treats it as non-livable space in their calculations.] The PAO was also to get a signed agreement from the PET, indicating agreement with the field verified dimensions, and this was accomplished and presented into evidence. Because only the PAO provided any `value-related' market information at the hearing and the PET only presented partial floor plan information WITHOUT any value-related evidence, the continuation hearing was merely a correction to the slight reduction in value, given the corrected building size. The PAO's original contested just value of$2,508,629 is hereby reduced to $2,491,867, based upon the PAO's reduction in building area and the PAO's own subsequent adjustments to their approaches to value. Per the agreed upon calculations based upon a field inspection by the PAO in the presence of the owner/Petitioner, the total AC area is 378 SF less than originally calculated, the total area under roof is 2 SF more, and the total `adjusted area' is 75 SF less. The reduction in the `adjusted area' is the main reason the just value dropped slightly, as that is the primary figure used by the PAO in their assessment process. To reiterate, `valuation issues' are not at issue or really being contested at this hearing. It is the building size that was in question, and the resulting value is basically a result of the true adjusted building area. It was not necessary for the PET to attend the continuation hearing, as the PET never had any contrary value (market-oriented) evidence to begin with. The modest value reduction is strictly a result of a slightly smaller adjusted building size. PET did file homestead for 2015, as this is the `base year' for this new single family home. Relief is granted, as the field measurements verified by the PAO and the PET proved the PAO's original building area calculations were slightly excessive. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET's position. The PAO was instructed to update their property records for the subject's correct size & sketch, as was submitted in the record during the continuation hearing. Conclusions of Law: Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment at the hearing [Section 194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$2,491,867 [Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the Petitioner. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule r 1 Florida Administrat ti ve 6 Code ode DEPARTMENT Effective 11/12 OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier 12 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00431 Parcel ID 67342040004 Petitioner name DEVITO, ANDREW P SUSAN L Property 230 TUPELORD The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34108 Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 120-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,508,629.00 2,508,629.00 2,508,629.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,508,629.00 2,508,629.00 2,508,629.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,458,629.00 2,458,629.00 2,458,629.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer ❑ 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 ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or acid pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Davis Mazur Davia Mazur 11/24/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/25/2015 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 web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The following people appeared on behalf of the Property Appraiser's Office (the "PAO"): Jenny Blaje, Director, Tax Roll Compliance/Improvements Department Annabel Ybacta, Director of Homestead Exemptions Jeep Quinby, Appraisal Assessment Analyst Gaylord Wood, Attorney for the PAO Petitioners Andy Devito and and Susan Devito appeared on their own behalf(the "Petitioners"). Ms. Blaje presented the case on behalf of the PAO with the following testimony and documents: Petitioners are the owners and builders of this new home. An initial building permit was applied for in May 2014. On 12/31/14, Susan Devito emailed the Building Department requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy ("TCO"). The TCO Request, at page 14 of the PAO's Evidence, states, "The home under construction...is now livable and therefore I am requesting the TCO for occupancy on January 2, 2014." The TCO Request further states, "All life safety items are completed." The TCO Request lists certain inspections that are to be completed after the issuance of the TCO, including plumbing (due to two missing vanities), three inspections related to a missing front door being shopped from overseas, framing, final building, and impact glass. There were also some landscaping items that were incomplete (see also PAO Evidence, p. 18 - Inspection Descriptions). There was no evidence or testimony indicating any work done on the property between 12/31/14 and 1/2/15. In response to Ms. Devito's TCO Request, Collier County issued a TCO on 12/31/14. The notation says, "OK TCO 30-day for occupancy 12/31/14." The TCO is at Pages 16-17 of the PAO's Evidence. Petitioners testified that they were told they had to request the TCO on 12/31/14 in order to obtain the TCO by January 2 or January 5, 2015 (their testimony varied) and that they were told the Building Department does not typically issue TCOs the same day they are requested. They said they were under pressure to move into the home by 1/2/15 (and in fact did move their furniture in on 1/2/15 - see moving receipt, Petitioner's Evidence, p. 15)) because their lease on a rental home was expiring and the landlord would not extend it. They said that when they moved in they had no gas or hot water and their front door was plywood. They said they were taking showers at a neighbor's house down the street. Ms. Blaje presented photographs of the home dated 12/30/14 taken by a PAO appraiser who was -- she said coincidentally -- doing an inspection that day (see photos - PAO Evidence, p. 9-11). On 1/29/15, Petitioners requested an extension of the TCO (PAO Evidence, p. 15) citing the necessity for a sprinkler inspection and the final plumbing inspection because they were waiting for a granite counter top to be installed. The Building Department approved the TCO Extension for 30 days (PAO Evidence, p. 15). On 2/26/15, Susan Devito applied for a homestead exemption for herself and Mr. Devito stating on the application that she occupied the property on 1/1/15 (PAO Evidence, p. 26). Conclusions of Law: Section 192.042(1), Florida Statutes, states: "Improvements or portions not substantially completed on January 1 shall have no value placed thereon. 'Substantially completed' shall mean that the improvement or some self- sufficient unit within it can be used for the purpose for which it was constructed." Petitioners argue that the only reason they applied for the TCO on 12/31/14 was because they needed to move in by 1/2/15 and were told the TCO would not be issued the same day it was requested. They seem to feel they were caught in a "Catch-22" that resulted in their home being placed unfairly on the tax rolls for 2015. This is not the case. The test is not when they applied for the TCO, or even when the TCO was issued. The test is whether the home could be used for the purpose for which it was constructed on 1/1/15. See, e.g., Markham v. Yankee Clipper Hotel, Inc., 427 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)(court made substantial completion inquiry although certificate of occupancy was issued on January 12). There is nothing in Petitioners' evidence or testimony that leads me to believe the home could not be used for its intended purpose on 1/1/15. The incomplete items in evidence and described in Petitioners' testimony and at Page 18 of the PAO's Evidence are incidental or ornamental and are not items that precluded use of the property for its intended purpose as a residence on 1/1/15. This is proven by the fact that Petitioners moved into the house as soon as practicable after the TCO was issued (their furniture was delivered on 1/2/15). There is no evidence any additional work on the home was done between 12/31/14 and 1/2/15, so the substantial completion "status" was the same on both dates. Petitioners also applied for a homestead exemption listing their date of occupancy as 1/1/15. They were ready, willing and able to move into the house as close to January 1, 2015 as they could, and in fact did so. "Occupancy is the single most telling indication of substantial completion." Markham v. Kauffman, 284 So.2d 416, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the evidence, that the PAO's determination that construction was substantially complete should be overturned. See Section 194.301(2)d, Florida Statutes; Rule 12D-9.027(5), Florida Administrative Code. The petition is denied. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT Effective 11/12 OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l),194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00434 Parcel ID 60576001104 Petitioner name G W SR E G HOFF TRUST Property 7516 SAN MIGUELWAY The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 336,512.00 336,512.00 336,512.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 336,512.00 336,512.00 336,512.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 336,512.00 336,512.00 336,512.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer ❑ 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 ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fin-in fields will expand or acid pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Davia Mazur Davia Mazur 10/23/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/23/2015 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 web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Annabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle appeared on behalf of the Property Appraiser's Office (the "PAO"). Petitioner, which is a trust, did not appear for the hearing but checked the box on the Petition indicating it would not be present and would like its evidence considered in its absence. Therefore, the PAO presented its case. Ms. Ybaceta stated that Petitioners filed a Petition for Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference on 9/8/15. However, Petitioners did not file an application for the 2015 homestead exemption. Ms. Ybaceta testified that the PAO spoke to Petitioners in person on 9/8/15 and told them they must make an application for homestead in order to qualify for the transfer and that until they did so there was nothing for the PAO to consider. To this day, no homestead application has been filed. In addition, the VAB Clerk's office called Petitioners to determine whether they were going to attend today's hearing, and Petitioners stated they were out of town. I then reviewed Petitioner's evidence. It consists only of documents received by mail from the PAO and the Notice of Hearing. No other evidence was submitted. Conclusions of Law: In order to qualify for a homestead exemption, a person or organization having legal title to property must file an application for the exemption for the year in question. See Section 196.011, Florida Statutes. Transfer of the Homestead Assessment Difference, or portability, is conditional upon applying and qualifying for the homestead exemption for that year. See Section 193.155, Florida Statutes. Since Petitioners did not file an application for homestead, they are not entitled to the 2015 transfer of homestead assessment difference (portability). The Petition is denied. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 °""Ad Florida Administrative Coodd e Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00435 Parcel ID 60576001104 Petitioner name G W SR E G HOFF TRUST Property 7516 SAN MIGUELWAY The petitioner is: D taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34109 Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 336,512.00 336,512.00 336,512.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 336,512.00 336,512.00 336,512.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 336,512.00 336,512.00 336,512.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer El Homestead ❑Widow/er El Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran El Low-income senior El Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran El Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military El Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages,as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Davia Mazur Davie Mazur 10/23/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM El PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 El Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Annabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle appeared on behalf of the Property Appraiser's Office (the "PAO"). Petitioner, which is a trust, did not appear for the hearing but checked the box on the Petition indicating it would not be present and would like its evidence considered in its absence. Therefore, the PAO presented its case. Ms. Ybaceta stated that Petitioner filed a Petition with the VAB regarding the denial of its homestead exemption on 9/8/15. However, Petitioner did not file an application for the 2015 homestead exemption. Ms. Ybaceta testified that the PAO spoke to Petitioners in person on 9/8/15 and told them they must make an application for homestead in order for their Petition to be considered. To this day, no homestead application has been filed. In addition, the VAB Clerk's office called Petitioners to determine whether they were going to attend today's hearing, and Petitioners stated they were out of town. I then reviewed Petitioner's evidence. It consists only of documents received by mail from the PAO and the Notice of Hearing. No other evidence was submitted. Conclusions of Law: In order to qualify for a homestead exemption, a person or organization having legal title to property must file an application for the exemption for the year in question. See Section 196.011, Florida Statutes. Since Petitioner did not file an application for homestead, it is not entitled to the 2015 homestead exemption. The Petition for the homestead exemption is denied. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. WI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00439 Parcel ID 14045280004 Petitioner name JOSEPH LOCKER Property 848 1ST AVE N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record V] taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary FI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,657,709.00 2,657,709.00 2,657,709.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,388,515.00 2,388,515.00 2,388,515.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,388,515.00 2,388,515.00 2,388,515.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/23/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Andrea Peterson. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Joseph Locker, Esq. (an attorney not licensed in the State of Florida), and he does have a letter of authorization from the owner. Mr. Locker is representing the new/current owner of the property, as of the hearing date. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as the "848 Building", which is located at 848 1st Avenue North in downtown Naples. The subject recently sold in July 2015 for $3,225,000. The Petitioner (PET) is contesting the PAO's just value assessment of$2,657,709, which happens to be 82.4% of this subsequent sale after the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value. The PAO presents the subject's aerial photograph, building sketch, building card information, the subject's Loopnet listing information (with interior photos), and the subject's Costar sale sheet for is July 2015 sale. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated the land value at $50/SF ($1,948,500), which is inclusive of impact fees. The PAO provides a land sales map for all 30 of his land sale and 2 listing indicators. Most are `residual' land indicators, given the high state of development in the subject's area. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements at $1,322,526 for a total Cost Approach value of$3,271,026. The PAO does provide Marshall Valuation cost figures to support his construction costs. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 17 improved sales. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas and construction dates of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $200/SF of building area X 18,375 SF = $3,675,000 for the subject. The $200/SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$3,268,588 (rounded), based upon a $24 `gross' rental rate, 10% vacancy, 30% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 8.5% applied to the NOI of$277,830. It is noted that the PET's rent roll indicates most of the subject's tenants pay well over $30/SF in gross rent. The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support specific to this property type, but does provide general cap rate support, prevailing retail rent support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness. It is noted the subject's land value alone is estimated by the PAO to be $1,948,500, or 73.3% of the assessment. The Petitioner (PET) only presents a rent roll into evidence, as of August 2015, which is 8 months after the assessment date of 1/1/2015. That rent roll indicates the subject's occupancy as 85.66%, with gross rents (when adding base rent to CAM fees) generally in excess of the PAO's gross rent projection. The PET states the owner took occupancy in a substantial amount of the building as `Askar Management Group' after the acquisition was completed. In those suites, the owner is in effect, paying himself rent, yet 6 other tenants are noted in the rent roll, as of August 2015. The PET argues that the subject is an old building and will require work to make it more presentable. The PET fails to present any valid arguments at the hearing, or timely evidence (before the hearing) that supports any reduction in the assessment. The PET wanted to submit late evidence at the hearing, but the PAO declined to accept. Because this is a lawyer who should be familiar with the exchange of evidence rules (discovery), the timely submission of evidence in advance is customary. Therefore, I also did not wish to consider any new evidence. RULING: Due to the extremely limited amount of evidence presented by the PET to contest the PAO's assessment, the PAO's assessment is upheld. The PET does not present any evidence that translates into a value estimate. Therefore, it is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. LJ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00440 Parcel ID 52658000345 Petitioner name JOSEPH LOCKER Property 1188 REFLECTIONAVE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary L1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 30,946.00 30,946.00 30,946.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 30,946.00 30,946.00 30,946.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 30,946.00 30,946.00 30,946.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law COL: Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/23/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Andrea Peterson. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Joseph Locker, Esq. (an attorney not licensed in the State of Florida), and he does have a letter of authorization from the owner. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is 1.63 acres of land with a 20' x 40'x covered shelter and asphalt parking lot of approximately 8,700 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value assessment of$30,946, or $2,500/acre. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted one approach to value & also cited the subject's 2014 sale [of 4 parcels]. The PET does not give much weight to the recorded price as it impacts this hearing. The subject's use is restricted by PUD ordinances. Basically, the subject is passive green space/recreation. The PAO presents the subject's summary of salient facts, an aerial photograph, ground level photographs of the shelter and green space/parking, assessment information from the tax rolls, zoning map, chart of land sales, land sales location map, Harvest for Humanity PUD master plan, building sketch, building card information, impact fee calculations, and deed information related to the subject's 2014 sale for $842,217. The subject was one of 4 parcels (all in that same deed and price consideration) sold by Hodges University, which is a Florida non-profit corporation. The buyer was representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The seller had this property in an `exempt' tax status, but after the transfer it is now taxable. Per the PAO's evidence, the subject's use is designated to accommodate educational/ college learning use, office, and customary accessory uses. Students are limited to a maximum of 80 in quantity. Accessory uses are county voting/polling places, maintenance/storage buildings, parking, gazebos, band shelters, pavilions, or comparable types of uses. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents 5 land sales. Four of the land sales closed in 2014, and one in 2013. The PAO provides $/acre indicators. The PAO concludes $4,000/ acre X 1.63 acres = $6,500 for the subject. The PAO then adds site improvements ($5K), impact fees ($250), depreciated value of the pavilion, and the contributory value of the parking lot ($23,000) for a total estimate of$45,000. Essentially, the subject has `use value', according to the PAO. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness, as (relatively speaking) the total value estimate (and the assessment) is almost nominal for a parcel this large. The Petitioner (PET) presents a.) the signed letter of intent dated (10/30/2014) to buy the subject for $1,000, along with b.) the subsequent closing statement (dated 11/14/2014), which also indicates $1,000 consideration paid. The sale is not considered a normal open-market transaction that meets the normal tests applied to most real estate. The PET does not provide any `value' evidence from the market in the form of sales, listings, or other indicators to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. RULING: Due to the extremely limited amount of evidence presented by the PET to contest the PAO's assessment, the PAO's assessment is upheld. The PET does not present any evidence that translates into a `market' value estimate. Therefore, it is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00443 Parcel ID 52658000442 Petitioner name JOSEPH LOCKER Property 1170 HARVEST DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record j taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 680,536.00 680,536.00 680,536.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 680,536.00 680,536.00 680,536.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 680,536.00 680,536.00 680,536.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands[Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/23/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Andrea Peterson. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Joseph Locker, Esq. (an attorney not licensed in the State of Florida), and he does have a letter of authorization from the owner. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an educational building of 6,233 SF with 11,300 SF asphalt paved parking lot situated upon 1.02 acres of land within a PUD. The subject is located at 1170 Harvest Drive. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value assessment of$680,536. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted one approach to value & also cited the subject's 2014 sale [of 4 parcels]. The PET does not give much weight to the recorded price as it impacts this hearing. The subject's use is restricted by PUD ordinances. Basically, the subject is designed to accommodate an educational institution/ college learning site, offices, and customary accessory uses. Students are limited to a maximum of 80 in quantity per term. Accessory uses are county voting/polling places, maintenance/storage buildings, parking, gazebos, band shelters, pavilions, or comparable types of uses. The PAO presents the subject's summary of salient facts, an aerial photograph, ground level & interior photographs, assessment information from the tax rolls, zoning map, chart of land sales, land sales location map, Harvest for Humanity PUD master plan, building sketch, building card information, impact fee calculations, and deed information related to the subject's 2014 sale for $842,217. The subject was one of 4 parcels (all in that same deed and price consideration) sold by Hodges University, which is a Florida non-profit corporation. The buyer was representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The seller had this property in an `exempt' tax status, but after the transfer it is now taxable. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents 5 land sales. Four of the land sales closed in 2014, and one in 2013. The PAO provides $/acre indicators. The PAO concludes $4,000/ acre X 1.02 acres = $4,000 for the subject. The PAO then adds site improvements ($5K), impact fees ($59,000), depreciated value of the 12-year old building ($685,500), covered entry ($36K), concrete patio ($14K), and the contributory value of the parking lot ($30,000) for a total estimate of$833,500. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness, as (relatively speaking) the total value estimate (and the assessment) is almost nominal for a parcel this large. The Petitioner (PET) presents a.) the signed letter of intent dated (11/5/2014) to buy the subject for $1,000, along with b.) the subsequent closing statement (dated 11/14/2014), which also indicates $1,000 consideration paid. The sale is not considered a normal open-market transaction that meets the normal tests applied to most real estate. The PET does not provide any `value' evidence from the market in the form of sales, listings, or other indicators to refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The PET does provide a non-exclusive lease to a 3rd party user ("Revelation Church"). However, the leased portion of the building is relatively small, as it is only two classrooms and an office. The lease is dated 7/28/2015 (well after the assessment date). RULING: Due to the extremely limited amount of evidence presented by the PET to contest the PAO's assessment, the PAO's assessment is upheld. The PET does not present any evidence that translates into a `market' value estimate. Therefore, it is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00448 Parcel ID 53570106287 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6677 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: i Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 362,701.00 362,701.00 362,701.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 362,701.00 362,701.00 362,701.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 362,701.00 362,701.00 362,701.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/10/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/10/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial El Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00449 Parcel ID 53570106300 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6673 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition El Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. • 1. Just value, required 362,701.00 362,701.00 362,701.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 362,701.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 362,701.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/10/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/10/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00450 Parcel ID 53570106326 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6669 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 362,744.00 362,744.00 362,744.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 362,744.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 362,744.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. Ei These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00451 Parcel ID 53570106423 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6649 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 413,549.00 413,549.00 413,549.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 413,549.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 413,549.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiao ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 21 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00452 Parcel ID 53570106481 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6637 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 344,663.00 344,663.00 344,663.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 344,663.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 344,663.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. EI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00453 Parcel ID 53570106863 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6609 MEZZO CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 755,835.00 755,835.00 755,835.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 755,835.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 755,835.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] © Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00454 Parcel ID 53570106960 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6589 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 424,051.00 424,051.00 424,051.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 424,051.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 424,051.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 • VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00455 Parcel ID 53570108120 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6554 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 252,874.00 252,874.00 252,874.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 252,874.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 252,874.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. * Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00456 Parcel ID 53570108146 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6550 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 227,387.00 227,387.00 227,387.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 227,387.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 227,387.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00457 Parcel ID 53570108162 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6538 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary [z] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action ' After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 249,389.00 249,389.00 249,389.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 249,389.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 249,389.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 7j Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiau ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002,F.A.C. N� Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00458 Parcel ID 53570108188 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6532 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 225,947.00 225,947.00 225,947.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 225,947.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 225,947.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194,171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00459 Parcel ID 53570108308 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6506 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.00 25(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 288,794.00 288,794.00 288,794.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 288,794.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 288,794.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. , Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00460 Parcel ID 53570108366 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6507 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 346,638.00 346,638.00 346,638.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 346,638.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 346,638.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00461 Parcel ID 53570108382 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6513 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: LI taxpayer of record � taxpayer's agent address NA PLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 211 Denied your petition LI Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 243,925.00 243,925.00 243,925.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 243,925.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 243,925.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00462 Parcel ID 53570108405 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6517 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 214,115.00 214,115.00 214,115.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 214,115.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 214,115.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] ▪ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00463 Parcel ID 53570108421 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record NAPLES, FL Y p Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 230,183.00 230,183.00 230,183.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 230,183.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 230,183.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. - � Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00464 Parcel ID 53570108463 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6529 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 242,897.00 242,897.00 242,897.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 242,897.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 242,897.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00465 Parcel ID 53570108489 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record NAPLES,p Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 298,632.00 298,632.00 298,632.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 298,632.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 298,632.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00466 Parcel ID 53570108528 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6541 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 247,549.00 247,549.00 247,549.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 247,549.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 247,549.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaj ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00467 Parcel ID 53570109666 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7602 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 249,774.00 249,774.00 249,774.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 249,774.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 249,774.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axili ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00468 Parcel ID 53570109682 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7598 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record WI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 231,777.00 231,777.00 231,777.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 231,777.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 231,777.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 1Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. IJ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00469 Parcel ID 53570109721 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7590❑ TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: taxpayer er of record � taxpayer's agent address NAP LES, FL ❑other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 320,659.00 320,659.00 320,659.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 320,659.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 320,659.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00470 Parcel ID 53570110024 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7530 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary LI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 217,322.00 217,322.00 217,322.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 217,322.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 217,322.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiagi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 7J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00471 Parcel ID 53570110040 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7524 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 274,287.00 274,287.00 274,287.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 274,287.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 274,287.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axili ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00472 Parcel ID 53570110066 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7523 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 240,835.00 240,835.00 240,835.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 240,835.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 240,835.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00473 Parcel ID 53570110082 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7527 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D 9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 232,773.00 232,773.00 232,773.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 232,773.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 232,773.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00474 Parcel ID 53570110147 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7541 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 228,318.00 228,318.00 228,318.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 228,318.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 228,318.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. IA These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00475 Parcel ID 53570110163 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7555 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary II Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 495,946.00 495,946.00 495,946.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 495,946.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 495,946.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axij ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00476 Parcel ID 53570110189 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7587 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record NAPLES,TRENTOCIR � taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary LJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 363,984.00 363,984.00 363,984.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 363,984.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 363,984.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00477 Parcel ID 53570110202 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7599 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL [' other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 219,500.00 219,500.00 219,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 219,500.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 219,500.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00478 Parcel ID 53570110244 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7607 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 235,516.00 235,516.00 235,516.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 235,516.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 235,516.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00479 Parcel ID 53570110260 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7611 TRENTOCIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address ❑other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary RI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 220,047.00 220,047.00 220,047.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 220,047.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 220,047.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] RI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00480 Parcel ID 53570110448 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7490 FLORENTINAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 288,723.00 288,723.00 288,723.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 288,723.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 288,723.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 1Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. IZ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00481 Parcel ID 53570110503 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 7478 FLORENTINAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 236,436.00 236,436.00 236,436.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 236,436.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 236,436.00 154,000.00 154,000.00 "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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiam ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00482 Parcel ID 53570108683 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6577 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,653.00 133,653.00 133,653.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00483 Parcel ID 53570108706 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6581 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 148,652.00 148,652.00 148,652.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 148,652.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 148,652.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. �, Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193,155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00484 Parcel ID 53570108722 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6585 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address El other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary [ZI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 148,652.00 148,652.00 148,652.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 148,652.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 148,652.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 `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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. \111 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00485 Parcel ID 53570108748 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6589 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,953.00 133,953.00 133,953.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,953.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,953.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193,155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00486 Parcel ID 53570108764 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6593 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 1J taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary 1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 161,837.00 161,837.00 161,837.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 161,837.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 161,837.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. ./ Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. J These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00487 Parcel ID 53570108780 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6599 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 136,878.00 136,878.00 136,878.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 136,878.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 136,878.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT J County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00488 Parcel ID 53570108803 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6603 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 145,105.00 145,105.00 145,105.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 145,105.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 145,105.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 121 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00489 Parcel ID 53570108829 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6607 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.00 25(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 137,658.00 137,658.00 137,658.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 137,658.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 137,658.00 ? 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. l These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00490 Parcel ID 53570108887 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6627 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary jI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 138,881.00 138,881.00 138,881.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 138,881.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 138,881.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00491 Parcel ID 53570108900 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6631 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 147,363.00 147,363.00 147,363.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 147,363.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 147,363.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00492 Parcel ID 53570108926 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record NAPLES, FL Y p Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 166,146.00 166,146.00 166,146.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 166,146.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 166,146.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiain ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. \ \"*": Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00493 Parcel ID 53570108942 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6639 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. • 1. Just value, required 147,052.00 147,052.00 147,052.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 147,052.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 147,052.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 1 1/1 1/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. )IA Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00494 Parcel ID 53570108968 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6643 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ej Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,653.00 133,653.00 133,653.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00495 Parcel ID 53570108984 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6647 ROMAWAY ' The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL • ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,653.00 133,653.00 133,653.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00496 Parcel ID 53570109006 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6651 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: LI taxpayer of record 1Z1 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary IZ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,653.00 133,653.00 133,653.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00497 Parcel ID 53570109022 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6655 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 282,703.00 282,703.00 282,703.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 282,703.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 282,703.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),ES.) 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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axing ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. 4 Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00499 Parcel ID 53570109048 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6659 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ? Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 209,455.00 209,455.00 209,455.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 209,455.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 209,455.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *Allvalues entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 • VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00500 Parcel ID 53570109064 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6663 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 121 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 225,700.00 225,700.00 225,700.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 225,700.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 225,700.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. WI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00501 Parcel ID 53570109080 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6664 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 254,381.00 254,381.00 254,381.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 254,381.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 254,381.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00502 Parcel ID 53570109103 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6660 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 266,289.00 266,289.00 266,289.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 266,289.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 266,289.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. I These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00503 Parcel ID 53570109129 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6656 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 217,014.00 217,014.00 217,014.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 217,014.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 217,014.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] EI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 1 1/1 1/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00504 Parcel ID 53570109145 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6652 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025f10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 135,347.00 135,347.00 135,347.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 135,347.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 135,347.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] E Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. N Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193,155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00505 Parcel ID 53570109161 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6648 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 135,246.00 135,246.00 135,246.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 135,246.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 135,246.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00506 Parcel ID 53570109187 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6644 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 135,145.00 135,145.00 135,145.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 135,145.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 135,145.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axila ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)0), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00507 Parcel ID 53570109242 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6632 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record WI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 151,874.00 151,874.00 151,874.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 151,874.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required . 151,874.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00508 Parcel ID 53570109268 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6628 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition LI Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 232,456.00 232,456.00 232,456.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 232,456.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 232,456.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] EI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00509 Parcel ID 53570109365 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6608 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,653.00 133,653.00 133,653.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00510 Parcel ID 53570109381 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6604 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL [' other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,653.00 133,653.00 133,653.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,653.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00511 Parcel ID 53570109404 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6600 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 133,687.00 133,687.00 133,687.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 133,687.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 133,687.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ▪ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00512 Parcel ID 53570109420 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6596 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 135,010.00 135,010.00 135,010.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 135,010.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 135,010.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] O Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. ` N.e Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 121 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00513 Parcel ID 53570109446 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6592 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record I taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 135,010.00 135,010.00 135,010.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 135,010.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 135,010.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] VI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. ! Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. j These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00514 Parcel ID 53570109462 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6588 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ej Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 143,519.00 143,519.00 143,519.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 143,519.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 143,519.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] ▪ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 N.* VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. N. . Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00515 Parcel ID 53570109488 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6584 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 192,672.00 192,672.00 192,672.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 192,672.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 192,672.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00516 Parcel ID 53570109501 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6576 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 12] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 175,218.00 175,218.00 175,218.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 175,218.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 175,218.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00517 Parcel ID 53570109527 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6572 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IZ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 127,037.00 127,037.00 127,037.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 127,037.00 127,037.00 127,037.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 127,037.00 127,037.00 127,037.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00518 Parcel ID 53570109543 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6568 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 127,037.00 127,037.00 127,037.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 127,037.00 127,037.00 127,037.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 127,037.00 127,037.00 127,037.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. 1:t^ Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00519 Parcel ID 53570109569 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6564 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 127,068.00 127,068.00 127,068.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 127,068.00 127,068.00 127,068.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 127,068.00 127,068.00 127,068.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 4' VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00520 Parcel ID 53570109585 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6560 ROMAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 127,449.00 127,449.00 127,449.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 127,449.00 127,449.00 127,449.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 127,449.00 127,449.00 127,449.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ, (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 € DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00521 Parcel ID 14002480009 Petitioner name FORESITE 599 LLC Property 59 9TH AVE S The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 2,559,033.00 2,559,033.00 2,559,033.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable, 2,559,033.00 2,559,033.00 2,559,033.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,559,033.00 2,559,033.00 2,559,033.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/30/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiagi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable improved properties and land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00522 Parcel ID 25315000262 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6830 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 332,594.00 332,594.00 332,594.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD ft 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00523 Parcel ID 25315000385 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6806 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 17j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 248,181.00 248,181.00 248,181.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00524 Parcel ID 25315000424 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6798 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary jj Denied your petition LI Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 272,893.00 272,893.00 272,893.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00525 Parcel ID 25315000440 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6794 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: I Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 188,727.00 188,727.00 188,727.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. / Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00526 Parcel ID 25315000505 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6782 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IA Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 188,727.00 188,727.00 188,727.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to •arties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. • These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00527 Parcel ID 25315000521 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6778 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 188,727.00 188,727.00 188,727.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. \d Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00528 Parcel ID 25315000547 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6774 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary [0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 188,727.00 188,727.00 188,727.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00529 Parcel ID 25315000563 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6770 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 194,751.00 194,751.00 194,751.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. IZ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00530 Parcel ID 25315000589 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6766 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EZ1 taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL Decision Summary LJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 221,819.00 221,819.00 221,819.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiza ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00531 Parcel ID 25315000602 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6762 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 231,982.00 231,982.00 231,982.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. FA These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(0, 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00532 Parcel ID 25315000644 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6754 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL [' other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 247,938.00 247,938.00 247,938.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ▪ These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00533 Parcel ID 25315000686 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6746 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record WI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 203,524.00 203,524.00 203,524.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axis ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ▪ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court.to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00534 Parcel ID 25315000709 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6742 CANWICK COVECIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 12:1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 215,531.00 215,531.00 215,531.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 31,097.00 31,097.00 31,097.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] ▪ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/11/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/13/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00544 Parcel ID 49706500043 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 5201 RATTLESNAKE HAMMRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 17j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 814,572.00 814,572.00 814,572.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 34,969.00 34,969.00 34,969.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 34,969.00 34,969.00 34,969.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/23/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Don Bennett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a combination of two petitions heard together (i.e. petitions TP-544 and TP-545). TP-544 (aka "Lot 1") is the western folio 49706500043 assessed for $814,572, and was considered a church/community facility site that does have a parking lot on it, according to the Petitioner. TP-545 (aka "Lot 2") is the eastern folio 49706500140 with an assessment of$350,658, and was considered a golf course site (without any parking areas in place), according to the Petitioner. Hibiscus Drive provides the main entrance point to the Hibiscus Golf course. Hibiscus Drive also divides these two folios. Each has frontage along the southern side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and each backs to a drainage canal. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photo, building sketch, plat map, Ordinance #2004-02 of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, portions of the 11/8/2007 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and Easements for the Hibiscus Golf Course, legal descriptions, Ordinance 2015-26 of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Future Land Use Map of Collier County, Release and Termination of Deed Restrictions (dated 8/5/2015), Executive Summary (approved 4/14/2015 by Collier County), various cap rate and rental trends in SW Florida, and the subject's building card information (but there are no structures in place upon the subject lots). At the hearing, I did accept into evidence 9 pages from the PAO for the "Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict". It was an application for a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan and was dated August 2014. It was prepared for the subject's owner by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP & Richard Yovanovich, Esq. It includes various explanations, as well as three color aerial photographs. The PAO labels his only approach used as a Cost Approach; however, it is actually a Sales Comparison Approach with vacant parcel comparable sales and listings. The PAO estimates land value via two different ways. In the first method as `commercial land', the PAO estimates 233,046 SF at $9.00/SF for a value indication of$2,097,414. Eleven sales and two land listings are considered for the commercial land estimate. The PAO also includes a land sales location map indicating the location of the various commercial land sales and listings. In the second method as vacant `multi-family land', the PAO bases the value estimate on 64 units @ $25,000/unit, or $1.6M. Five sales and one land listing are considered for the multi-family land estimate. No map is provided for the location of the multi-family land sales. The PAO indicates the subject went through a re-zoning process. The PAO testifies that the subject's 2015 (current) value is as `commercial'; however, its rezoning (applicable to the 2016 assessment) will be for multi-family use (apparently up to 64 dwelling units). Therefore, the PAO provides values both ways in his analysis. The PAO notes the subject's combined size is a `net' size of 233,046 SF (i.e. 5.35 acres, net the canal & interior street between the parcels). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing reasonable conclusions of land value for the subject. The Petitioner (PET) provides a roster of evidence mainly related to legal recordings (some similar to the PAO's submittals), but the PET does not provide `value evidence'. The PET's main contention is that because the owner did not release deed restrictions until 8/15/2015, the 1/1/2015 assessment should have remained very low (consistent with CF & golf course assessments), as was the case for many prior years. RULING: At the end of the hearing, I had deferred my decision to allow the PET time to provide into the record proof by Nov 14th of officially recorded documentation re- imposing 1968 deed restrictions back to a church/community facility for the subject's western parcel. The PET failed to provide such evidence that should have been readily available from the owner, owner's legal counsel, or the Official Records of Collier County, should such records exist. Because the records were not provided, I am left to assume the subject's western parcel has a more normal, market-oriented use more in line with the manner in which it is valued by the PAO. Mr. Wood notes Florida's "Marketable Record Title Act" (F.S. 712.04 & .05) states that deed restrictions in Florida automatically expire after 30 years from the point they are first imposed. Per PET's evidence, they were first imposed (recorded) in 1968; thus, they would have to been reinstated by 1998, yet (apparently they were not, as no evidence in the remand was provided). Mr. Wood also notes the `land use' supersedes zoning, per Chapter 163 F.S., which has always been my understanding in the valuation of real property. Therefore, the Collier County Land Use in place as of the assessment date of 1/1/2015 becomes the issue, given the [apparent] expiration of the deed restrictions in 1998. In addition (and as noted by Mr. Stephens), the 11/8/07 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for the Hibiscus Golf Course (paragraph A) specifically calls out the subject parcels by stating, "Developer plans to develop as a commercial development...". The deed restrictions had already expired at by that 2007 time frame. The PET's assertion that they had not expired until conveyed by the 8/5/2015 recorded filing by Richard Yovanovich, Esq. is unfounded, but that filing may have been only as a precautionary measure to ensure quiet title. Again, the 30 years of those restrictions had already expired in 1998, but also that recording could have related to other issues and reservations related to the [non-subject] golf course. As stated earlier in this Final Ruling section, the Collier County Land Use in place as of the assessment date of 1/1/2015 becomes the issue. Per the PAO's evidence (accepted at the hearing) the "Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict" application for a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan was prepared for the subject's owner in August 2014 (i.e. before the 1/1/2015 assessment date). It states, "This amendment proposes to amend the Future Land Use Element to redesignate approximately 7.9 acres from the "URBAN DESIGNATION-MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT" to the "Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict". This appears to imply the subject (on the assessment date) was for urban, residential development, and NOT golf course or community development, regardless of any zoning that may have been in place. Again, the LAND USE (not the CF/GC zoning) in this case should supersede, particularly given the original intent to use the subject for a profitable [not golf/community facility] form of use from a deed restriction that had already expired. There was no evidence provided to me from the PET that would stipulate or imply from the LAND USE that restricts the subject's development to very limited uses of CF or GC zoning. If there had been, the PET had ample opportunity to provide such evidence in the period allowed after the hearing date. Because the PET did not provide VALUE evidence to refute the PAO's VALUE evidence, it is recommended that the PAO's assessment should be upheld. It is noted that the PAO provided both commercial land and residential/multi-family land comparable data. It would appear more appropriate from the evidence presented that the multi-family data would be more applicable to this hearing, but it becomes moot, since both sets of values are significantly higher than the combined assessment of$1,165,230 of the two folios petitioned. Because of the above facts, the PAO's assessment is upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 ` VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. .1 f Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00545 Parcel ID 49706500140 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 5205 RATTLESNAKE HAMMRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 [' other, explain: Decision Summary 17I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 350,658.00 350,658.00 350,658.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 15,054.00 15,054.00 15,054.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 15,054.00 15,054.00 15,054.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/23/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/23/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Gaylord Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO), Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Don Bennett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a combination of two petitions heard together (i.e. petitions TP-544 and TP-545). TP-544 (aka "Lot 1") is the western folio 49706500043 assessed for $814,572, and was considered a church/community facility site that does have a parking lot on it, according to the Petitioner. TP-545 (aka "Lot 2") is the eastern folio 49706500140 with an assessment of$350,658, and was considered a golf course site (without any parking areas in place), according to the Petitioner. Hibiscus Drive provides the main entrance point to the Hibiscus Golf course. Hibiscus Drive also divides these two folios. Each has frontage along the southern side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and each backs to a drainage canal. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photo, building sketch, plat map, Ordinance #2004-02 of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, portions of the 11/8/2007 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and Easements for the Hibiscus Golf Course, legal descriptions, Ordinance 2015-26 of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Future Land Use Map of Collier County, Release and Termination of Deed Restrictions (dated 8/5/2015), Executive Summary (approved 4/14/2015 by Collier County), various cap rate and rental trends in SW Florida, and the subject's building card information (but there are no structures in place upon the subject lots). At the hearing, I did accept into evidence 9 pages from the PAO for the "Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict". It was an application for a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan and was dated August 2014. It was prepared for the subject's owner by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP & Richard Yovanovich, Esq. It includes various explanations, as well as three color aerial photographs. The PAO labels his only approach used as a Cost Approach; however, it is actually a Sales Comparison Approach with vacant parcel comparable sales and listings. The PAO estimates land value via two different ways. In the first method as `commercial land', the PAO estimates 233,046 SF at $9.00/SF for a value indication of$2,097,414. Eleven sales and two land listings are considered for the commercial land estimate. The PAO also includes a land sales location map indicating the location of the various commercial land sales and listings. In the second method as vacant `multi-family land', the PAO bases the value estimate on 64 units @ $25,000/unit, or $1.6M. Five sales and one land listing are considered for the multi-family land estimate. No map is provided for the location of the multi-family land sales. The PAO indicates the subject went through a re-zoning process. The PAO testifies that the subject's 2015 (current) value is as `commercial'; however, its rezoning (applicable to the 2016 assessment) will be for multi-family use (apparently up to 64 dwelling units). Therefore, the PAO provides values both ways in his analysis. The PAO notes the subject's combined size is a `net' size of 233,046 SF (i.e. 5.35 acres, net the canal & interior street between the parcels). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing reasonable conclusions of land value for the subject. The Petitioner (PET) provides a roster of evidence mainly related to legal recordings (some similar to the PAO's submittals), but the PET does not provide `value evidence'. The PET's main contention is that because the owner did not release deed restrictions until 8/15/2015, the 1/1/2015 assessment should have remained very low (consistent with CF & golf course assessments), as was the case for many prior years. RULING: At the end of the hearing, I had deferred my decision to allow the PET time to provide into the record proof by Nov 14th of officially recorded documentation re- imposing 1968 deed restrictions back to a church/community facility for the subject's western parcel. The PET failed to provide such evidence that should have been readily available from the owner, owner's legal counsel, or the Official Records of Collier County, should such records exist. Because the records were not provided, I am left to assume the subject's western parcel has a more normal, market-oriented use more in line with the manner in which it is valued by the PAO. Mr. Wood notes Florida's "Marketable Record Title Act" (F.S. 712.04 & .05) states that deed restrictions in Florida automatically expire after 30 years from the point they are first imposed. Per PET's evidence, they were first imposed (recorded) in 1968; thus, they would have to been reinstated by 1998, yet (apparently they were not, as no evidence in the remand was provided). Mr. Wood also notes the `land use' supersedes zoning, per Chapter 163 F.S., which has always been my understanding in the valuation of real property. Therefore, the Collier County Land Use in place as of the assessment date of 1/1/2015 becomes the issue, given the [apparent] expiration of the deed restrictions in 1998. In addition (and as noted by Mr. Stephens), the 11/8/07 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for the Hibiscus Golf Course (paragraph A) specifically calls out the subject parcels by stating, "Developer plans to develop as a commercial development...". The deed restrictions had already expired at by that 2007 time frame. The PET's assertion that they had not expired until conveyed by the 8/5/2015 recorded filing by Richard Yovanovich, Esq. is unfounded, but that filing may have been only as a precautionary measure to ensure quiet title. Again, the 30 years of those restrictions had already expired in 1998, but also that recording could have related to other issues and reservations related to the [non-subject] golf course. As stated earlier in this Final Ruling section, the Collier County Land Use in place as of the assessment date of 1/1/2015 becomes the issue. Per the PAO's evidence (accepted at the hearing) the "Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict" application for a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan was prepared for the subject's owner in August 2014 (i.e. before the 1/1/2015 assessment date). It states, "This amendment proposes to amend the Future Land Use Element to redesignate approximately 7.9 acres from the "URBAN DESIGNATION-MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT" to the "Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict". This appears to imply the subject (on the assessment date) was for urban, residential development, and NOT golf course or community development, regardless of any zoning that may have been in place. Again, the LAND USE (not the CF/GC zoning) in this case should supersede, particularly given the original intent to use the subject for a profitable [not golf/community facility] form of use from a deed restriction that had already expired. There was no evidence provided to me from the PET that would stipulate or imply from the LAND USE that restricts the subject's development to very limited uses of CF or GC zoning. If there had been, the PET had ample opportunity to provide such evidence in the period allowed after the hearing date. Because the PET did not provide VALUE evidence to refute the PAO's VALUE evidence, it is recommended that the PAO's assessment should be upheld. It is noted that the PAO provided both commercial land and residential/multi-family land comparable data. It would appear more appropriate from the evidence presented that the multi-family data would be more applicable to this hearing, but it becomes moot, since both sets of values are significantly higher than the combined assessment of$1,165,230 of the two folios petitioned. Because of the above facts, the PAO's assessment is upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 7j These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00546 Parcel ID 53570106847 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6613 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary FI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 628,196.00 628,196.00 628,196.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 628,196.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 628,196.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. J Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00547 Parcel ID 53570106821 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 6617 COSTA CIR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 613,409.00 613,409.00 613,409.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 613,409.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 613,409.00 165,000.00 165,000.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 71 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00548 Parcel ID 66674602108 Petitioner name PATRICK III, WALTER T, JOANNE S PATRb Property 6968 GREENTREE DR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition IZ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,166,000.00 2,166,000.00 1,854,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,166,000.00 2,166,000.00 1,854,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,116,000.00 2,116,000.00 1,804,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The PAO officials were sworn in at this hearing. The Petitioner's representative at this hearing is Mr. Walter Patrick, III. Mr. Patrick indicates he is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. [Note: Due to technical difficulties early in the hearing, the audio file had to be stopped. In the record, there are three audio files to this hearing, but the 2nd is only a test file, so basically there are two primary audio files pertaining to this hearing's testimony.] PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1993, and it is an interior lakefront lot within a non-gated portion of the Pelican Bay subdivision. It is located at 6968 Greentree Drive in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 4,622 SF. The subject has an open pool/spa and a side entry 2-car garage. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,166,000. The subject previously was purchased by the Petitioner in October 2012 for $1.5M, but the owner/ Petitioner then added a 2nd story addition of 680 SF (with a $300K permit value) that went the tax rolls for 2015. The addition was for livable space above the garage. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. Mr. Staruch indicates this is the owner's first (base) year of homestead exemption. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15,400/front foot (FF), which is inclusive of impact fees that run with the land. The PAO provides 1 `residual' land sale indicator [i.e. using improved sale #2 from the PAO's improved sale grid], based upon the removal of the improved assessed portions of that sale. The resulting lot value of the subject is $1,788,710. The PAO then adds site improvements ($35,000 for driveways, landscaping, etc.) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($772,2300) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,595,910. The PAO applies 9% depreciation to the improvements, based upon an effective year built of 2005 (given some renovations & a 2nd floor addition to the subject). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 improved sales from the immediate neighborhood. Sales #1, 3, and 4 are interior, dry lots that are smaller than the subject. In addition, these 3 sales have significantly smaller adjusted building sizes compared to the subject. Sale #2 is on the lake like the subject and it sold for $1.76M, but it is 781 SF smaller in building size, plus it's effective age is based upon 1990; whereas, the subject's is based upon 2005 (i.e. 15 years newer, given renovations). The PAO applies very large adjustments to 4 of the 5 sales, resulting in fully adjusted value indicators that range from $2.382M - $2.592M. Regardless, PAO's sale #4 (with a fully adjusted indicator of$2.431M) provides the best support for the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$2,470,000. While I do have some issues with the PAO's two approaches (as will be further discussed in my final ruling), the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided a 1-page summary chart of 10 improved sales that closed during 2014 as his only piece of evidence in his original submittal to this hearing. The 5th sale ($825,000) was not an arm's length sale. According to the PAO, it was a transfer into a trust, and not a conveyance between unrelated parties. Therefore it is disregarded. The PAO also states that PET sales 1>4 are at the northern end of the street/immediate neighborhood, and in a busier area closer to condominiums. (Regardless, 7023 Greentree Drive still sold for $1.9M, which was more than 4 of the 5 PAO sales provided. Furthermore, 7019 Greentree Drive sold for $1.7M, which is as much or more than 3 of the PAO's 5 sales). The PET's chart had a column for "base living area", which (according to the PAO) was derived from MLS information for only the ground floor, but fails to include the 2nd story of the homes. This became evident because the PET's sales 6>10 are also the PAO's sales 1>5 (but in a different order). The PET's grid fails to account for views, garages, building age, or other amenity features. As previously stated, the PET indicates he is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida; thus, he should have been able to provide a better presentation of relevant sales attributes. The PET also questioned the PAO's building size calculations for the addition. After discussion, it appears the PAO's methodology was correct, given the staircase (additional livable space) was not properly considered by the PET. At the hearing, the PET also provided 5 pages of rebuttal evidence, which I accepted at the hearing. This is because the PET submits his evidence first and without the benefit of seeing the PAO's evidence. Therefore, the PET's only chance to rebut is at this hearing, as the PET is unable to submit through AXIA within 15 days of the hearing. The PET questions the subject's topography and submerged land area. The PAO indicates the back easement (drainage/lake) area is not given consideration in the assessment process with regard to the subject and the comparable sales data. The PAO addresses the rear easement area, which is similar to rear setback issues of the vast majority of residential housing restrictions by typical zoning codes. The PAO clarified a waterfront lot sale the PET presented at 6578 Ridgewood Drive for $1.275M. The PAO indicates it backed to Tamiami Trail and was for 2 folios, not just one. RULING: After hearing the evidence from both parties, it does appear the PET has raised some questions regarding the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment and has in fact overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness for the following reasons: First, I have a problem with the PAO's land value based upon a `residual' from only 1 sale. Second, the PAO's land value estimate of$1.789M is more than 4 of the 5 PAO's IMPROVED sales, which seems illogical, and the PAO obtained his land value from PAO improved sale #2, which closed for $1.76M. Third, the PAO makes extremely large gross adjustments to his sales #1-#4 that range from $714K-$1.082M. Gross adjustments to sales 1>4, are 83.3%, 40.6%, 52.5%, 62%, and 5.7%, respectively. A very large portion of those gross adjustments has to do with the PAO's land size adjustments, which appear inconsistent [on a $/FF basis] and not explained. Fourth, Improved sale #5 is on the golf course and a lake, while the subject has a just a lake view, yet the PAO still makes a +$252,164 adjustment to Sale #5 for its supposed inferiority, yet it still appears to be a deeper/larger lot than the subject, even though its FF factor is only slightly less. Improved sale #5 does appear to be the best PAO sale presented, but I do have issue with the large view adjustment and question if it is really warranted at all. Sixth, the PAO concludes a value of$2.47M, yet that figure is outside the range of ANY of the sales prices provided by the PAO or the PET. Simply stated, the PAO's it appears excessive. Based upon the improved sales evidence that is presented, the PAO's Sale #5 is the best comparable provided, as it is closest in building size, view amenity, excellent quality, and effective age (both it and the subject are considered 2005 by the PAO). The PAO's adjustment of+$252,164 appears unwarranted, given that it has a lake and golf view amenity; whereas, the subject only has a lake view. It appears to be extremely similar in lot size, or at least in front feet, per the PAO's data. It is unlikely that a buyer would consider or notice any significant lot size difference. I give weight to the PAO's fully adjusted price of$2,431,200 (rounded), less the unwarranted $250,000 (rounded) adjustment applied by the PAO for a figure of$2,181,200. I then apply a 15% COS deduction for my concluded figure of$1,854,000 (rounded). As a test of reasonableness to this figure, one should consider the PET's fairly recent purchase price of$1,500,000, plus his cost for the 2nd story addition ($300,000) to the garage. These two figures total $1.8M (i.e. just $4K less than the $1.854M figure derived from PAO sale #5. One should remember that just bought the property on 10/31/2012 (i.e. 2 years and 2 months prior to the assessment date). Furthermore, the market has continued to appreciate. The appreciation amount is basically equivalent to the COS (i.e. Cost of Sale) discount, so the PET is basically getting an assessment almost equivalent to his `full cost' into the property. This appears to be a very good, fair, and equitable test of reasonableness to the use of Sale #5's information, as previously outlined. It does appear unfair that the PAO should conclude a full market value of$2,470,000 from this Sales Comparison Approach that is $170,000 higher than ANY SALE PRESENTED by either party. It also appears unfair the PAO should conclude a subject LOT value of$1,788,710, when $1,788,710 is higher than 4 of the 5 PAO `IMPROVED' sales. My concluded/recommended figure of $1,854,000 (rounded), allows for some degree of COS cushion from the subsequent market appreciation, yet is tested for reasonableness by the mere fact the PET paid $1.5M and then paid an additional $300K for an addition. This makes sense, is easy to understand, and is results in fairness to the Petitioner. Relief is granted to $1,854,000 (rounded). Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by property appraiser at the hearing [Section 194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$1,854,000 [Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. J Effective 11/12 tt*. County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00552 Parcel ID 13803880003 Petitioner name KYLE SHEEHAN Property 2000 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,807,183.00 5,807,183.00 5,807,183.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,807,183.00 5,807,183.00 5,807,183.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,807,183.00 5,807,183.00 5,807,183.00 *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 Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The Petitioner DID NOT submit evidence. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/05/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axili ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA t7RtDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. ® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00553 Parcel ID 66070001303 Petitioner name KYLE SHEEHAN Property 4955 GOLDEN GATE PKWY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.0025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 6,080,778.00 6,080,778.00 6,080,778.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,444,964.00 5,444,964.00 5,444,964.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,444,964.00 5,444,964.00 5,444,964.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The Petitioner DID NOT submit evidence. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/05/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.coliierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00555 Parcel ID 77160080003 Petitioner name MIKE HAIRR Property 1810 LAKE TRAFFORD RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 925,304.00 925,304.00 925,304.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 893,377.00 893,377.00 893,377.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 893,377.00 893,377.00 893,377.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. While the Petitioner DID submit evidence, it will not be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/05/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPART NT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00556 Parcel ID 00075720001 Petitioner name MIKE HAIRR Property 1027 SUMMER GLEN BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 972,373.00 972,373.00 972,373.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 930,881.00 930,881.00 930,881.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 930,881.00 930,881.00 930,881.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. While the Petitioner DID submit evidence, it will not be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/05/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/05/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 \ VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. - Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00564 Parcel ID 36180080008 Petitioner name JUSTIN LINES Property 5543 LAUREL RIDGELN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 4,480,762.00 4,480,762.00 4,480,762.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,412,846.00 3,412,846.00 3,412,846.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,412,846.00 3,412,846.00 3,412,846.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/28/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/28/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but issued an email requesting their evidence be heard. The Petitioner's agent is Mr. Justin Lines with Pivotal Tax Solutions. There is a letter of authorization in the PET's evidence. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 78-unit LITCH (Low Income Tax Credit Housing) apartment development home built in 1994. All units have 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The subject is known as "Laurel Ridge". It is located at 5543 Laurel Ridge Road in Naples. The site area is 6.58 acres. This location is east of I-75 and south of Pine Ridge Road. The adjusted building size is 92,874 SF, or 1,191 SF/unit. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$4,480,762 ($57,446/unit). The PET requests an assessment of$3M (38,462/unit). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO objects on the record for the consideration of the PET's evidence, as the PET is unable to be sworn in, and also the PET is unable to cross-examine the PET. The PAO submitted a valuation summary, color aerial photo, building sketches, location map, Cost Approach/Marshall Valuation support, Sales Comparison Approach, `typical' Income Approach, impact fee calculations, Cap rates/ trends, Costar rental comparison data, Loopnet Asking Price Index exhibit, Bergstrom Center Market Condition Survey for the 3rd Quarter 2014/2015 cap rates, apartment Cap rate exhibit, and the subject's building card information. The PAO indicates he was not provided with the subject's historical operating information related to the subject, even though that information was specifically requested from the owner. The PAO notes that the PET also did not include historical operating data for this hearing either. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25,000/unit X 78i units, plus impact fees ($775,437). Site work was estimated at $1.25/SF X 286,625 SF. These items equate to $2,983,718. The PAO provides 5 land sales & 1 land listing, which do appear highly supportive of the PAO's land value conclusion. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($5,331,885) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$8,315,603. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 6 improved sales within Collier County. The PAO makes a verbal correction to the first sale, as it was NOT the subject's sale for $9,450,100, it was the sale of Saddlebrook Village. The PAO indicates that all of these sales were tax credit properties at the time of sale. One closed in 2013, 4 during 2014, and one in May of 2015 (not given any weight). The PAO uses a $/SF and $/bedroom as the units of comparison. The subject is assessed at $48.25/ SF, or $19,149/bedroom. Those two indicators are substantially below the corresponding indicators derived from the improved sales presented. In his conclusion, the PAO gives weight to $72/SF X 92,874 SF, less a TPP deduction ($12,603), for a final Sales Comparison Approach value estimate of$6,674,325, or $85,568/unit. In the Income Approach, the PAO stated he was not provided with historical operating information to directly consider, but had previously requested it from the owner of the property. Florida law states that the PAO `must recognize' the actual income for this property type in the assessment process. Therefore, the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach are far less relevant in the assessment process, unless certain financial data (such as OAR's, etc.) may be derived from those approaches. Florida law does not dictate the PAO `must USE' the subject's actual income,just `recognize' it. In this case, if the PET or owner fails to provide it to the PAO, there is no way the PAO can `recognize' it. However, the PAO does have a variety of other LITCH financial information available from properties that directly compete with the subject in the Collier County market, and those competitors do submit information regularly to the PAO. The term `income' (as used in the law) can also have different meanings, as perhaps it could be interpreted as `gross' (PGI), or `effective gross income' (EGI), or perhaps net income (NOI). There is a distinction between the terms that does appear to be open up a gray area of analysis in the assessment process, perhaps by design by the FL legislature when they wrote the law pertaining to the assessment of this class of apartments. The PAO projects the subject's `typical' (i.e. market) income at $13,200/unit (i.e. $1,100/month/unit), 5% vacancy, 45% expenses [without real property taxes], and then applies a loaded OAR of 7.7% to the NOI of$537,966, then makes a TPP deduction ($12,603) for a final Income Approach value indication of$6,973,968 (i.e. $89,410/ unit). From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided timely evidence into the record before the hearing. The PET notes the subject's 2015 assessment increased 19.1% from 2014. The PET provides a property summary, aerial photographs, location map, ground level photograph, breakdown of the subject's 6/2011 sale for $3.32M from Costar. The PET also presents a Sales Comparison Approach consisting of only two sales that both closed in 2013. The first sale was not a tax credit property. The second property was for the building only, as it was located on leased land. The PAO's data clearly shows that 2014 sales were available for consideration, so the PET's information is outdated. Furthermore, FL law requires the PET to `recognize' the subject's income for this specific property type, which the PET fails to do. The PET'S rebuttal evidence was not entertained. Much of it appears to be `new evidence', along with the recorded restrictions for the subject. RULING: The PET only presents outdated (2013) evidence for consideration leading up to the 1/1/2015 assessment date. The PET fails to `recognize' the subject's income as required by FL law specifically for this property type. Overall, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing, but submitted an email that their evidence be heard. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00566 Parcel ID 14045440006 Petitioner name DAN LEONARD W/RYAN, LLC Property 31 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition LI Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,745,280.00 1,745,280.00 1,745,280.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,409,698.00 1,409,698.00 1,409,698.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,409,698.00 1,409,698.00 1,409,698.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Dan Leonard with Ryan, LLC) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 7-11 store located at 31 9th Street North in Naples. (Corner of U.S. 41 & Central Avenue downtown Naples). The subject has a building size of 2,436 SF situated upon a site of 30,000 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$1,745,280 (i.e. $58.18/SF of land area). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$1,325,612 (i.e. $44.19/SF of land area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO only focused on the land value, which was estimated at $85/SF ($2.55M), which is inclusive of impact fees. The PAO could have further added the depreciated value of the improvements for additional value, but it was not necessary to support the assessment. Based upon the 30 land sale indicators (many are `residual' indicators; whereby, the land value is obtained via abstraction) and two land listings provided by the PAO. It is noted that 5 of the PAO's land indicators closed after the assessment date. The PAO's land indicator #16 is the PET's #2, and the PAO's land indicator #22 is the PET's land sale #1. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of sales in the general vicinity, and it is noted that many of the sales did have structures upon the sites; thus, `residual' methods were employed by the PAO to get a better idea of the resulting land value that is actually the driving force of most acquisitions of smaller/older/improved properties in this immediate area. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in Southwest Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $800/SF of building area X 2,436 SF = $1,948,800 for the subject. The $800/ SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, the PAO states he gives `no weight' to the Sales Comparison Approach, because of pumps/tanks, and TPP involved in many of those sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$1,157,097 (rounded), based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$83,311. The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support specific to this property type, but does provide general cap rate support, prevailing retail rent support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. The PAO does provide a roster of convenience store "for sale" listings to demonstrate asking cap rates for this class of property. However, it is stressed that these are `leased fee' asking cap rates backed by corporate guarantees. In many such cases it is also noted that vacancy and expenses are not even deducted by investors (or listing brokers) in the determination of such rates. While the PAO does not do the math, the actual rental rates/SF can be determined from his roster of convenience store listings. The asking price is multiplied by the cap rate to get an annual rental rate, which when divided by the SF of building area, the annual rent per SF is evident. After doing the math for most of the listings and giving consideration to location, the PAO's use of$40/ SF does not at all appear unreasonable (and the PAO deducts for vacancy & expenses; whereas, those listings do not). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area. The PAO's Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach also provide good additional support to the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The Petitioner (PET) presents a Cost Approach, based upon a land value of$35/SF ($1,050,000). The PET uses 3 land sales (all that closed between $21.81-$24.28/SF), so it is unknown how the PET reconciles to $35/SF. Land Sale #3 closed in 3/2015 on Airport-Pulling Road (inferior location to the subject). The remaining two sales (also mapped and considered by the PAO) are both east of U.S. 41 in inferior locations. The Petitioner (PET) concludes a Cost Approach value of$1,325,612 (i.e. $44.19/SF of land area). It is noted that the PET includes a 2014 sale at 3600 Tamiami Trail North, which was 7-11 built in 1962 upon a very small lot (indicated as 3,485 SF in Costar). It is about two miles north of the subject on the east side of U.S. 41, but it has very limited parking. It has 2,217 SF of building area; thus, sold for $142.71/SF, but it is a substantially inferior sale compared to the subject and has limited parking with a side driveway access for the property behind it. If it were to be considered a land sale (given the very old building), then the price of$316,388 equates to a land value indicator of$90.79, which is very much in line with the PAO's land value estimate of$85/SF. [Note: The PAO says it has 4,500 SF of land; thus, that would equate to $70.231/SF of land]. The PET does not call this one sale an `approach'. Regardless, one sale does not make a market, if it is intended to be an improved. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00568 Parcel ID 63400200007 Petitioner name DAN LEONARD W/RYAN, LLC Property 4612 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary jI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,355,690.00 1,355,690.00 1,355,690.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,220,986.00 1,220,986.00 1,220,986.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,220,986.00 1,220,986.00 1,220,986.00 *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. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/17/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner failed to appear, did submit any evidence, and submitted an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$1,355,690. The subject is a 7-11 store with a car wash located on North Tamiami Trail in Naples at the NE corner with Granada Boulevard. The subject's address if 4612 North Tamiami Trail. In the Cost Approach, the PAO only focused on the land value, which was estimated at $40/SF ($1.8M), plus impact fees ($215,283) for a total land value indication of $2,015,283. The PAO could have further added the depreciated value of the improvements for additional value, but it was not necessary to support the assessment. Based upon the 26 land sale indicators and one land listing provided by the PAO, it appears the subject's land value is very well justified by the sales in closest proximity to the subject. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$1.825M (rounded), based upon two rental rates applied to the subject's areas, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$131,392. The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support, but does provide general cap rate support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in Southwest Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $800/SF of building area X 4,695 SF = $3.765M for the subject. The $800/SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing solid land value support, which is the basic building block of H&BU and value. The Petitioner (PET) provides a Cost Approach, one improved sale, and a portion of the subject's lease originally executed in 2008. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET fails to include the subject's car wash or impact fees. The PET concludes a land value of$19.93/ SF, which is about half of the PAO's well-supported land value. None of the PET's land sales are located on Highway 41, and the PET's land sale #3 is actually industrial (not commercial) land in an industrial park, according to the PAO. The PET does include an improved 7-11 sale built in '62, but it is an unusual and small interior parcel that also provides driveway access to a warehouse located behind it. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's well-supported land value is sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00569 Parcel ID 67180920001 Petitioner name DAN LEONARD W/RYAN, LLC Property 5320 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 627,377.00 627,377.00 627,377.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 591,380.00 591,380.00 591,380.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 591,380.00 591,380.00 591,380.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Dan Leonard with Ryan, LLC) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 7-11 store located at 5320 Tamiami Trail in Naples. This location is at Northeast Corner of U.S. 41 & Pine Ridge Road, which is a busy intersection. The subject has a building size of 2,585 SF situated upon a site of 25,735 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$627,377 (i.e. $24.38/SF of land area). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$544,916 (i.e. $21.17/SF of land area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO only focused on the land value, which was estimated at $40/SF ($1,145,969), which is inclusive of$116,569 of impact fees. The PAO could have further added the depreciated value of the improvements for additional value, but it was not necessary to support the assessment. The land value estimate was based upon the 26 land sale indicators (many are `residual' indicators; whereby, the land value is obtained via abstraction) and 1 land listing provided by the PAO. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of sales along the Tamiami Trail corridor. It is noted that many of the sales did have structures upon the sites; thus, `residual' methods were employed by the PAO to get a better idea of the resulting land value that is actually the driving force of most acquisitions of smaller/older/improved properties in this immediate area. The land value appears to be very well supported, especially since the subject is on a very prominent corner location. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in Southwest Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $800/SF of building area X 2,858 SF = $2,068,000 for the subject. The $800/ SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, the PAO stated in a related/earlier hearing with the same PET, he gives `no weight' to the Sales Comparison Approach, because of pumps/tanks, and TPP involved in many of those sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$1,227,875 (rounded), based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$88,407. The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support specific to this property type specifically in Naples, but does provide general cap rate support, prevailing retail rent support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. The PAO does provide a roster of convenience store "for sale" listings in SW Florida to demonstrate asking cap rates for this class of property. However, it is stressed that these are `leased fee' asking cap rates backed by corporate guarantees. In many such cases it is also noted that vacancy and expenses are not even deducted by investors (or listing brokers) in the determination of such rates. While the PAO does not do the math, the actual rental rates/SF can be determined from his roster of convenience store listings. The asking price is multiplied by the cap rate to get an annual rental rate, which when divided by the SF of building area, the annual rent per SF is evident. After doing the math for most of the listings and giving consideration to location, the PAO's use of$40/SF does not at all appear unreasonable (and the PAO deducts for vacancy & expenses; whereas, those listings do not). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area. The PAO's Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach also provided good additional support to the reasonableness of the PRO's assessment. The Petitioner (PET) presents a Cost Approach, based upon a land value of$17.02/SF ($437,495). The PET uses 3 land sales (all that closed between $8.43-$22.43/SF), but two of those land sales were INDUSTRIAL land transactions, NOT commercial land like the subject. Land Sale #1 is located on Airport-Pulling Road (inferior location to the subject's location on U.S. 41). It is noted that the PET includes a 2014 sale at 3600 Tamiami Trail North, which was 7-11 built in 1962 upon a very small lot (indicated as 3,485 SF in Costar). It is about two miles south of the subject on the east side of U.S. 41, but it has very limited parking. It has 2,217 SF of building area; thus, sold for $142.71/SF, but it is a substantially inferior sale compared to the subject and has limited parking with a side driveway access for the property behind it. If it were to be considered a land sale (given the very old building), then the price of$316,388 equates to a land value indicator of$90.79/SF. [Note: The PAO says it has 4,500 SF of land; thus, that would equate to $70.31/SF of land]. The PET does not call this one sale an `approach'. Regardless, one sale does not make a market, if it is intended to be an improved sale indicator. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. Q These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00570 Parcel ID 62412000005 Petitioner name DAN LEONARD W/RYAN, LLC Property 10795 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 121 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary L1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 817,339.00 817,339.00 817,339.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 699,339.00 699,339.00 699,339.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 699,339.00 699,339.00 699,339.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Dan Leonard with Ryan, LLC) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 7-11 store located at 10795 Tamiami Trail North in the Naples Park area. This location is at Southwest Corner of U.S. 41 & 108th Avenue North,just south of Immokalee Road. The subject has a building size of 2,688 SF situated upon a site of 34,647 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$817,339 (i.e. $23.59/SF of land area). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$688,036 (i.e. $19.86/SF of land area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO only focused on the land value, which was estimated at $40/SF ($1,502,551), which is inclusive of$116,671 of impact fees. The PAO could have further added the depreciated value of the improvements for additional value, but it was not necessary to support the assessment. The land value estimate was based upon the 26 land sale indicators (many are `residual' indicators; whereby, the land value is obtained via abstraction) and 1 land listing provided by the PAO. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of sales along the Tamiami Trail corridor. It is noted that many of the sales did have structures upon the sites; thus, `residual' methods were employed by the PAO to get a better idea of the resulting land value that is actually the driving force of most acquisitions of smaller/older/improved properties in this immediate area. The land value appears to be very well supported by the indicators in closest proximity to the subject. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in Southwest Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $800/SF of building area X 2,688 SF = $2,150,400 for the subject. The $800/ SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, the PAO stated in a related/earlier hearing with the same PET, he gives `no weight' to the Sales Comparison Approach, because of pumps/tanks, and TPP involved in many of those sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$1,276,806 (rounded), based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$91,930. The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support to this property type specifically in Naples, but does provide general cap rate support, prevailing retail rent support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. The PAO does provide a roster of convenience store "for sale" listings in SW Florida to demonstrate asking cap rates for this class of property. However, it is stressed that these are `leased fee' asking cap rates backed by corporate guarantees. In many such cases it is also noted that vacancy and expenses are not even deducted by investors (or listing brokers) in the determination of such rates. While the PAO does not do the math, the actual rental rates/SF can be determined from his roster of convenience store listings. The asking price is multiplied by the cap rate to get an annual rental rate, which when divided by the SF of building area, the annual rent per SF is evident. After doing the math for most of the listings and giving consideration to location, the PAO's use of$40/SF does not at all appear unreasonable (and the PAO deducts for vacancy & expenses; whereas, those listings do not). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area. The PAO's Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach also provided good additional support to the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The Petitioner (PET) presents a Cost Approach, based upon a land value of$16.60/SF ($574,992). The PET uses 5 land sales (all that closed between $5.80-$11.80/SF), but 4 of the 5 of those were located in Bonita Springs in [generally inferior] Lee County. The 5th sale is a rear parcel in a commercially developed area of Quail Creek PUD, and it is east of I-75 north of Immokalee Road in an inferior area. The PET ignored a variety of other land transactions (the PAO used) close to the subject that could have provided a far better indication of land value. It is noted that the PET includes a 2014 sale at 3600 Tamiami Trail North, which was 7-11 built in 1962 upon a very small lot (indicated as 3,485 SF in Costar). It is further south of the subject on the east side of U.S. 41, but it has very limited parking. It has 2,217 SF of building area; thus, sold for $142.71/SF, but it is a substantially inferior sale compared to the subject and has limited parking with a side driveway access for the property behind it. If it were to be considered a land sale (given the very old building), then the price of$316,388 equates to a land value indicator of$90.79/SF. [Note: The PAO says it has 4,500 SF of land; thus, that would equate to $70.31/SF of land]. The PET does not call this one sale an `approach'. Regardless, one sale does not make a market, if it is intended to be an improved sale indicator. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration. PET did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00571 Parcel ID 57872000003 Petitioner name DAN LEONARD W/RYAN, LLC Property 641 COLLIER BLVDS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 800,846.00 800,846.00 800,846.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 725,526.00 725,526.00 725,526.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 725,526.00 725,526.00 725,526.00 `All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank,the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Dan Leonard with Ryan, LLC) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 7-11 store located at 641 South Collier Boulevard on Marco Island. This location is at the corner of South Collier Boulevard and Winterberry Drive. The subject has a building size of 2,496 SF situated upon a site of 26,571 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$800,846 (i.e. $30.14/SF of land area). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$696,410 (i.e. $26.21/SF of land area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO only focused on the land value, which was estimated at $40/SF, plus $116,671 of impact fees for a total of$1,220,876. The PAO could have further added the depreciated value of the improvements for additional value, but it was not necessary to support the assessment. The land value estimate was based upon the 2 land sale indicators, 10 `residual' indicators, and 5 land listings. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of commercial land indicators on Marco Island. It is noted that many of the sales did have structures upon the sites; thus, `residual' methods were employed by the PAO to get a better idea of the resulting land value that is actually the driving force of most acquisitions of smaller/older/improved properties in this immediate area. The land value appears to be very well supported by the indicators in closest proximity to the subject. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in Southwest Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $800/SF of building area X 2,496 SF = $1,996,800 for the subject. The $800/ SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, the PAO stated in a related/earlier hearing with the same PET, he gives `no weight' to the Sales Comparison Approach, because of pumps/tanks, and TPP involved in many of those sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$1,185,597 (rounded), based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$85,363. [Note: The PAO did include the Income Approach value in his `Value Summary' page, but only apparently had a printer error in including all the numbers in his actual Income Approach exhibit, but did have the $40/SF rent, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and 7.2% OAR. After doing the appropriate math, the value indication agrees with $1,185,597 stated in his summary page.] The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support to this property type specifically in Naples, but does provide general cap rate support, prevailing retail rent support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. The PAO does provide a roster of convenience store "for sale" listings in SW Florida to demonstrate asking cap rates for this class of property. However, it is stressed that these are `leased fee' asking cap rates backed by corporate guarantees. In many such cases it is also noted that vacancy and expenses are not even deducted by investors (or listing brokers) in the determination of such rates. While the PAO does not do the math, the actual rental rates/ SF can be determined from his roster of convenience store listings. The asking price is multiplied by the cap rate to get an annual rental rate, which when divided by the SF of building area, the annual rent per SF is evident. After doing the math for most of the listings and giving consideration to location, the PAO's use of$40/SF does not at all appear unreasonable (and the PAO deducts for vacancy & expenses; whereas, those listings do not). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area. The PAO's Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach also provided good additional support to the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The Petitioner (PET) presents a Cost Approach, based upon a land value of$22.50/SF ($597,861). The PET uses 5 land sales (all that closed between $5.80-$11.80/SF), but 4 of the 5 of those were located in Bonita Springs in [substantially inferior] Lee County. The 5th sale is a rear parcel in a commercially developed area of Quail Creek PUD, and it is east of I-75 north of Immokalee Road in an inferior area. The PET ignored a variety of other land transactions (the PAO used) close to the subject that could have provided a far better indication of land value. The PET's land sales appear to have no relevance whatsoever to the subject's location on Marco Island. It is noted that the PET includes a March 2012 lease pertaining to the subject, but there is no explanation as to how that lease impacts the subject or is to be considered in this hearing. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00572 Parcel ID 17915200001 Petitioner name DAN LEONARD W/RYAN, LLC Property 860 7TH AVE N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary El Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 661,254.00 661,254.00 661,254.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 530,710.00 530,710.00 530,710.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 530,710.00 530,710.00 530,710.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages: as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Dan Leonard with Ryan, LLC) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 7-11 store located at 860 7th Avenue North in Naples. (1 lot west of U.S. 41 & on the south side of 7th Avenue North in downtown Naples). The subject has a building size of 3,882 SF situated upon a site of 16,869 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$661,254 (i.e. $39.20/SF of land area). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$492,271(i.e. $29.18/SF of land area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO only focused on the land value, which was estimated at $50/SF + impact fees of$270,279, for a total of$1,113,729. The PAO could have further added the depreciated value of the improvements for additional value, but it was not necessary to support the assessment. Based upon the 30 land sale indicators (many are `residual' indicators; whereby, the land value is obtained via abstraction) and two land listings provided by the PAO. It is noted that 5 of the PAO's land indicators closed after the assessment date. The PAO's land indicator #16 is the PET's #2, and the PAO's land indicator #22 is the PET's land sale #1. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of sales in the general vicinity, and it is noted that many of the sales did have structures upon the sites; thus, `residual' methods were employed by the PAO to get a better idea of the resulting land value that is actually the driving force of most acquisitions of smaller/older/improved properties in this immediate area. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in Southwest Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $800/SF of building area X 3,882 SF = $3,105,600 for the subject. The $800/ SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, the PAO states in a related hearing that he gives `no weight' to the Sales Comparison Approach, because of pumps/tanks and TPP involved in many of those sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$1,434,181 (rounded), based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of$103,261. The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support specific to this property type, but does provide general cap rate support, prevailing retail rent support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. The PAO does provide a roster of convenience store "for sale" listings to demonstrate asking cap rates for this class of property. However, it is stressed that these are `leased fee' asking cap rates backed by corporate guarantees. In many such cases it is also noted that vacancy and expenses are not even deducted by investors (or listing brokers) in the determination of such rates. While the PAO does not do the math, the actual rental rates/SF can be determined from his roster of convenience store listings. The asking price is multiplied by the cap rate to get an annual rental rate, which when divided by the SF of building area, the annual rent per SF is evident. After doing the math for most of the listings and giving consideration to location, the PAO's use of$40/ SF does not at all appear unreasonable (and the PAO deducts for vacancy & expenses; whereas, those listings do not). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area. The PAO's Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach also provide good additional support to the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The Petitioner (PET) presents a Cost Approach, based upon a land value of$24.17/SF ($407,722). The PET uses 3 land sales (all that closed between $11.82-$24.28/SF). Two of the PET's land sales were also mapped and considered by the PAO) & both are east of U.S. 41 in inferior locations. The Petitioner (PET) concludes a Cost Approach value of $492,271 (i.e. $29.18/SF of land area). RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET should have considered land transactions along (and west of) U.S. 41 for greater comparability to the subject. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner did submit evidence for consideration and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. Vjj These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00573 Parcel ID 29331190709 Petitioner name DAN LEONARD W/RYAN, LLC Property 1235 CREEKSIDE TRL The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,552,504.00 1,552,504.00 1,552,504.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,503,926.00 1,503,926.00 1,503,926.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,503,926.00 1,503,926.00 1,503,926.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/22/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (Dan Leonard with Ryan, LLC) failed to appear, but did submit evidence and an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 7-11 store with a car wash built in 2006. It is located at 1235 Creekside Trail in Naples. The PAO considers the subject to be an outparcel inside the Creekside PUD. The subject has a building size of 4,464 SF situated upon a site of 65,322 SF. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to value to support the contested just value of$1,552,504 (i.e. $23.77/SF of land area). The Petitioner (PET) requests a just value of$905,610(i.e. $13.86/SF of land area). In the Cost Approach, the PAO only focused on the land value, which was estimated at $22/SF + impact fees of$252,518, for a total of$1,689,602. The PAO could have further added the depreciated value of the improvements for additional value, but it was not necessary to support the assessment. Based upon the 13 land sale indicators (1 is a `residual' indicator; whereby, the land value is obtained via abstraction). It is noted that 2 of the PAO's land sales closed after the assessment date. It appears the PAO was attempting to provide a broad spectrum of `outparcel' sales in County along Tamiami Trail and some of the other busy traffic arteries. Based upon the data presented, it appears the PAO's land value & impact fees are well supported. The PAO provides a location map for the sales, as well as impact fee calculations. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents 10 improved sales from various locations [many considered inferior to Naples] in Southwest Florida. The PAO provides $/SF of building indicators, yet the land areas of those sales are unknown. The PAO concludes $800/SF of building area X 4,464 SF = $3,571,200 for the subject. The $800/ SF figure appears reasonable; however, the photos & details to each of the sales are vague and not provided, yet (as stated) many are located in inferior locations. Furthermore, the PAO states in a related hearing that he gives `no weight' to the Sales Comparison Approach, because of pumps/tanks and TPP involved in many of those sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO concludes a value of$2,120,403, based upon a $40 rental rate, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, and a loaded OAR of 7.2% applied to the NOI of $152,669. The PAO does not provide any rent comparable support specific to this property type, but does provide general cap rate support, prevailing retail rent support, the subject's building card information, and the subject's color aerial photograph. The PAO does provide a roster of convenience store "for sale" listings to demonstrate asking cap rates for this class of property. However, it is stressed that these are `leased fee' asking cap rates backed by corporate guarantees. In many such cases it is also noted that vacancy and expenses are not even deducted by investors (or listing brokers) in the determination of such rates. While the PAO does not do the math, the actual rental rates/ SF can be determined from his roster of convenience store listings. The asking price is multiplied by the cap rate to get an annual rental rate, which when divided by the SF of building area, the annual rent per SF is evident. After doing the math for most of the listings and giving consideration to location, the PAO's use of$40/SF does not at all appear unreasonable (and the PAO deducts for vacancy & expenses; whereas, those listings do not). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a good representation of prevailing land values in the subject's area. The PAO's Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approach also provide good additional support to the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. The Petitioner (PET) appears to present an inappropriate `leased fee' value for the land ONLY, based up on the 2011 contract rent being paid. The PET presents some of the original lease terms and extensions, but it appears the building is not considered. Regardless, the assessment should be based upon prevailing market rents for the land AND building to derive a fee simple market value, not the leased fee value 3 or 4 years prior to the assessment date. The PET's methodology is invalid and inappropriate for the purposes of this hearing & the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PET appears to be using the existing contract rent (apparently for the land only) based upon a lease that originally started in 2004, and using the 2011 contract rent as the basis for rent on the assessment date. When doing an Income Approach for a VAB hearing, the PET should be using the `market' rent for the building AND the land to derive a market value, and not a `leased fee' value (as implied in the terminology used in the PET's Income Approach. Because the PET only uses one invalid & in inappropriate approach, the PET's presentation lacks credibility at this hearing. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld, as the PAO's three approaches are sufficient to uphold the assessment. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule Ad ministrative 16 Code � Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier p These actions are a recommendation only, not final El These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00574 Parcel ID 49680680005 Petitioner name PHILLIPS CHESTER A III Property 5555 HERON POINT DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 727,300.00 727,300.00 727,300.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 626,435.00 626,435.00 626,435.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 576,435.00 576,435.00 576,435.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer ❑ 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 4 Transfer of homestead assessment difference ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or acid pages,as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/03/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/05/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Petitioner, Chester A. Phillips, filed a petition regarding the transfer of the homestead assessment difference for Petitioner's prior homestead which is located at 5555 Heron Point Dr., Unit 1001, Naples, Florida. Petitioner appeared with his wife, Judith. The Property Appraiser's office was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions Department, Jennifer Earle, and Jenny Blaje, Director of Tax Roll Compliance. All parties were sworn in. The Property Appraiser offered an evidence package consisting of 10 pages, which was admitted without objection as PA's Composite Exhibit 1. The Petitioner's evidence package consisting of 39 pages was admitted as P's Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner originally purchased the condominium on December 2, 2002. The condo was sold on July 3, 2015 for the sum of$965,150, which reflected a reduction for the 3% real estate commission. (Phillips; P.1, p.28). Petitioner purchased a new home in Lee County with a just value of$643,180, and a Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference was completed and filed by Petitioner on February 17, 2015. (PA 1, p.6). The sum of$11,929 was transferred to the new homestead property in Lee County. Petitioner sought to argue that the value of the subject condo was well below market and presented evidence in the form of closed sales and listing prices for other condos in the same building at 5555 Heron Point Drive during 2013 and 2014. (P.1; Phillips) Petitioner also presented evidence as to the total cost of improvements made to the property from 2002 to 2014 in the amount of$133,690. (P.1, p. 10) Conclusions of Law: Section 194.011(6), Fla. Stat., governs the process whereby a taxpayer may petition the value adjustment board regarding the transfer of the homestead assessment difference, also known as the Saves Our Homes differential. This subsection (6) states clearly that the following provisions apply to petitioners to the value adjustment board concerning the assessment of homestead property at less than just value under s. 193.155(8). Section 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., provides the substantive provisions governing the transfer of the homestead differential. Section 194.011(6)(b) states unequivocally that "the taxpayer may not petition to have the just, assessed or taxable value of the previous homestead changed." Consequently, Petitioner's request that the Special Magistrate consider the propriety of the value established by the Property Appraiser as of January 1, was not properly before the Value Adjustment Board and could not legally be addressed by the magistrate. This prohibition is reiterated in Rule 12D-9.028(1), Fla. Admin. Code, which states that no adjustment to the just, assessed or taxable values of a previous homestead parcel may be made pursuant to a petition under this rule. Section 194.011(3)(d), Fla. Stat., requires that a petition challenging the assessment must be filed on or before the 25th day after the mailing of the notice of proposed taxes. Petitioner timely filed a petition, albeit a petition improperly appealing the transfer of the homestead differential. Assuming, however, that the petition properly sought relief from the assessed valuation and was properly scheduled before an appraiser special magistrate, the appraiser special magistrate still lacks the ability to provide Petitioner with the relief he seeks. Petitioner has no legal standing to file a value petition challenging the assessment with the Value Adjustment Board without an assignment of this right from the current owner of the condominium. The law does not allow a former owner to challenge an assessment for taxes which are the legal responsibility of another to pay. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's transfer of the sum of$11,929, was wrong. Petitioner failed to present any credible and relevant evidence to show that this calculation was in error. Rather, all evidence showed that the Property Appraiser properly applied s. 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., when transferring the assessment difference to the new homestead property. It is therefore this Magistrate's recommendation that the Petition be denied. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00576 Parcel ID 85000508941 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4370 THOMASSON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record j taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ej Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,233,833.00 1,233,617.00 1,233,617.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,233,833.00 1,233,617.00 1,233,617.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,208,833.00 1,208,617.00 1,208,617.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. * Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00577 Parcel ID 85000067495 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4601 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 713,719.00 713,719.00 713,719.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 713,719.00 713,719.00 713,719.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 688,719.00 688,719.00 688,719.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00578 Parcel ID 85000067482 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 175 BARFIELDDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL ❑other, explain: Decision Summary II Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,615,389.00 1,615,389.00 1,615,389.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,615,389.00 1,615,389.00 1,615,389.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,590,389.00 1,590,389.00 1,590,389.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00579 Parcel ID 85000206036 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 7101 RADIO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,514,314.00 1,514,314.00 1,514,314.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,514,314.00 1,514,314.00 1,514,314.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,489,314.00 1,489,314.00 1,489,314.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 tdd DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. f These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00580 Parcel ID 85000211102 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 11200 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary fI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,331,419.00 1,331,419.00 1,331,419.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,331,419.00 1,331,419.00 1,331,419.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,306,419.00 1,306,419.00 1,306,419.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] • Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiagi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00581 Parcel ID 85000246436 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 5991 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,613,397.00 1,613,397.00 1,613,397.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,613,397.00 1,613,397.00 1,613,397.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,588,397.00 1,588,397.00 1,588,397.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axi2a ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE __..-------- The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00582 Parcel ID 85000272002 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 2310 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,697,935.00 1,697,935.00 1,697,935.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,697,935.00 1,697,935.00 1,697,935.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,672,935.00 1,672,935.00 1,672,935.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 71 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00583 Parcel ID 85000294394 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 12663 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary LI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. • 1. Just value, required 1,156,804.00 1,156,804.00 1,156,804.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,156,804.00 1,156,804.00 1,156,804.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,131,804.00 1,131,804.00 1,131,804.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. N^l Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00584 Parcel ID 85000373079 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 1089 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,219,905.00 1,219,905.00 1,219,905.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,219,905.00 1,219,905.00 1,219,905.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,194,905.00 1,194,905.00 1,194,905.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiagi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00585 Parcel ID 85000403619 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 5624 STRANDBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary J Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 834,934.00 834,934.00 834,934.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 834,934.00 834,934.00 834,934.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 809,934.00 809,934.00 809,934.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(I), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00586 Parcel ID 85000428445 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 2450 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 121 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 910,132.00 910,132.00 910,132.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 910,132.00 910,132.00 910,132.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 885,132.00 885,132.00 885,132.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00587 Parcel ID 85000485242 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 15265 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,205,487.00 1,205,487.00 1,205,487.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,205,487.00 1,205,487.00 1,205,487.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,180,487.00 1,180,487.00 1,180,487.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. • These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00588 Parcel ID 85000509490 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 8585 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary LI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,063,002.00 1,063,002.00 1,063,002.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,063,002.00 1,063,002.00 1,063,002.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,038,002.00 1,038,002.00 1,038,002.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] O Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. ! Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. EI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00589 Parcel ID 85000653469 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4975 AVILA AVE The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record ZI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,118,265.00 1,118,265.00 1,118,265.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,118,265.00 1,118,265.00 1,118,265.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,093,265.00 1,093,265.00 1,093,265.00 `All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired[12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Zl Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 • Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiqi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. lJ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00590 Parcel ID 85000672974 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 8841 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ['other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,448,784.00 2,448,784.00 2,448,784.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,448,784.00 2,448,784.00 2,448,784.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,423,784.00 2,423,784.00 2,423,784.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, . Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00591 Parcel ID 85000685518 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 1981 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ['taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,012,449.00 3,012,449.00 3,012,449.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,012,449.00 3,012,449.00 3,012,449.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,987,449.00 2,987,449.00 2,987,449.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision 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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 120-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00592 Parcel ID 85000660300 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 12975 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record J taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary � Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,428,671.00 1,428,671.00 1,428,671.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,428,671.00 1,428,671.00 1,428,671.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,403,671.00 1,403,671.00 1,403,671.00 `AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00593 Parcel ID 85000701968 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4860 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary LJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,747,610.00 2,747,610.00 2,747,610.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,747,610.00 2,747,610.00 2,747,610.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,722,610.00 2,722,610.00 2,722,610.00 *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 The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axi2a ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00594 Parcel ID 85000637993 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 9101 STRADAPL The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary FA Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 3,104,445.00 3,104,445.00 3,104,445.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,104,445.00 3,104,445.00 3,104,445.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,079,445.00 3,079,445.00 3,079,445.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. V] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00596 Parcel ID 69650160001 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 2136 RIVER REACH DR The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 15,340,393.00 15,340,393.00 15,340,393.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 13,962,153.00 13,962,153.00 13,962,153.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 13,962,153.00 13,962,153.00 13,962,153.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiagi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO's assessment is upheld, as the PET did not attend the hearing, did not submit any evidence, and did not provide any just cause for non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). FLORIDA t7RtQA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00597 Parcel ID 69650080000 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 2131 RIVER REACH DR The petitioner is: ['taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Ij Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 26,207,990.00 26,207,990.00 26,207,990.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 24,166,453.00 24,166,453.00 24,166,453.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 24,166,453.00 24,166,453.00 24,166,453.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO's assessment is upheld, as the PET did not attend the hearing, did not submit any evidence, and did not provide any just cause for non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00599 Parcel ID 66270040009 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 5811 PELICAN BAY BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IZ1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 28,697,620.00 28,697,620.00 28,697,620.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 28,697,620.00 28,697,620.00 28,697,620.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 28,697,620.00 28,697,620.00 28,697,620.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) • Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed, Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. EI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/02/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/03/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO's assessment is upheld, as the PET did not attend the hearing, did not submit any evidence, and did not provide any just cause for non-attendance. The PET submitted an email to VAB staff indicating non-attendance & requesting any evidence be considered (yet there was no evidence from the Petitioner to consider). FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. FA These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193,155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00601 Parcel ID 38286740004 Petitioner name SHIPP, DOUGLAS R & MARGARET M Property 4920 TAMARIND RIDGEDR The petitioner is: 1ZI taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary LI Denied your petition El Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,078,289.00 1,062,494.00 1,062,494.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,078,289.00 1,062,494.00 1,062,494.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,028,289.00 1,012,494.00 1,012,494.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/30/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier County. The burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge. The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Comparable land sales within the area. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. t> � Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00602 Parcel ID 59960012228 Petitioner name FIRST SNK LTD INVESTMENT TRUST Property 15143 BROLIOLN The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition I Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,608,694.00 2,608,694.00 1,940,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,608,694.00 2,608,694.00 1,940,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,558,694.00 2,558,694.00 1,890,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/19/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/20/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Property Appraiser failed to present sufficient evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011 F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Property Appraiser did not establish a presumption of correctness. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value. The evidence included: comparable sales data in the area.Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property in Collier county. The evidence included: the fair market sale of the property in 2014 for $1,940,000 with supporting data. Conclusions of Law: Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$1,940,000. [12D-9.027(2)(a), F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. WI These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00609 Parcel ID 82687000360 Petitioner name DLBA LLC Property 8477 BAY COLONYDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary LI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 6,245,000.00 6,245,000.00 6,245,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,005,000.00 5,005,000.00 5,005,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,005,000.00 5,005,000.00 5,005,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/20/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/22/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The PAO was represented by Bruce Stephens, Jenny Blaje, Jeep Quinby, and Don Wegener. The PET did not attend the hearing and did check the box for non-attendance on the petition form. The PET failed to submit any evidence to the hearing, while the PAO did provide evidence in the record. However, it was not necessary to entertain the PAO's evidence in this case. Conclusions of Law: The PAO's assessment is upheld, as the PET did not attend, did not submit any evidence, and did not provide any just cause for non-attendance. Relief is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. ` \td Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. j These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00613 Parcel ID 85000469844 Petitioner name WENDY KRAEMER Property 3400 PROGRESSAVE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL [' other, explain: Decision Summary LI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 415,831.00 415,831.00 415,831.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 415,831.00 415,831.00 415,831.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 390,831.00 390,831.00 390,831.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. 1.t* Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00619 Parcel ID 85000455023 Petitioner name AMANDA GOODY Property 3725 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 265,535.00 265,535.00 265,535.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 265,535.00 265,535.00 265,535.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 240,535.00 240,535.00 240,535.00 *AII values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. E1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00620 Parcel ID 85000703490 Petitioner name AMANDA GOODY Property 1150 AIRPORT RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 71 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,472,756.00 1,071,600.00 1,071,600.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,472,756.00 1,071,600.00 1,071,600.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,472,756.00 1,046,600.00 1,046,600.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed, Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right Petitioner may have to bring in action in circuit court is not impaired [12D-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/27/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser presented evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The evidence included: Florida Statue acceptable Mass Appraisal Techniques for Tangible Personal Property. This evidence proved Property Appraiser's compliance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. In comparison to the significant number of personal property items being assessed in the petition, market data provided by the petitioner was a small sample, in addition provided very limited market data support and therefore not enough credible evidence to support petitioners Market Approach Technique versus Mass Appraisal Technique Approach. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. Q These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00624 Parcel ID 00433440004 Petitioner name NAPLES HMA INC, Property 8340 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34114 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Q Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 65,700,582.00 65,700,582.00 65,700,582.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 63,370,011.00 63,370,011.00 63,370,011.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 63,370,011.00 63,370,011.00 63,370,011.00 `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 (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/21/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear, but did submit any evidence and submitted an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 100-bed hospital known as the Physicians Regional Medical Center-Collier Boulevard. The subject includes an adjacent 4-story medical office building that is a part of the same folio number being contested. The subject is located at 8340 Collier Boulevard in Naples. This location is south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The subject was originally built in 2007. There is a power plant structure on the northern end of the site, which provides mechanical support to the hospital. The subject has 210,073 SF of building area in the main 3-story hospital, plus 80,056 SF of building area in the 4-story medical office building. The entire site consists of 1,950,616 net SF (i.e. 44.78 acres, which is net of lakes, conservation easement, and an FPL easement). The PAO prepared both an Income Approach & a Cost Approach. The PAO submitted building card data, and an aerial photograph. The PAO also includes cap rate and general rental information, but that information is not directly related to health care properties or hospitals. Generally speaking, the Cost Approach is the most applicable approach for hospitals. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $9.50/SF + $1.25/SF for site work/infrastructure, plus impact fees ($4,593,068) for a total land/site work/impact fees value indication of$25,562,190. The depreciated value of the improvements, plus that land/site work/impact fees equates to $116,468,253, or $1,164,863/bed. The PAO presents a roster of 11 land sales and two land listings. While the subject is a very large site, it is located at an interstate interchange. The PAO's land value estimate does appear reasonable from the data provided. Regardless, the subject's main value is in the construction costs, which are substantially greater than the land value. The PAO does note a press announcement article relating to a new 128-bed Golisano Children's Hospital of SW Florida being built in Lee County with a projected cost of$1,906,250/ bed (not including the land). The PAO provides a land sales/listings map, grid of land sales (and 2 listings), impact fee calculations, and Marshall Valuation data. The PAO based his calculations on excellent quality construction and also uses 8% depreciation (i.e. 1%/year of actual age). The PAO uses excellent quality (4 ranking) for the hospital, and good quality (3 ranking) for the medical office building. In the Income Approach, the PAO estimated medical office building rents at $22/SF, and hospital rents at $1,000/day X 365 days a year. Vacancy is estimated at 35%, and expenses at 60%. The PAO applies a loaded 9.5% OAR, resulting in an Income Approach value indictor of$93.77M after a $10.94M deduction for personal property. The PAO fails to support most of his inputs in this approach; however, there is limited OAR and rental data in the PAO's evidence, yet it is not necessarily medical-specific. I give no weight to the PAO's Income Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a well- supported Cost Approach for this specialized property type. I give no significance to the PAO's Income Approach. The Petitioner (PET) also only presents a Cost Approach. The PET includes the subject's tax roll basic summary of information, Marshall Valuation sheets, and a Marshall cost estimate of$56.28M, based upon a land input [i.e. the PAO's administrative breakdown component of land] at $7,306,550 and a site improvements input of$750K. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET fails to include market-supported land value. The PET only inputs the PAO's administrative assessment for the land, which is an improper appraisal procedure. The PAO notes the subject's hospital is fireproof steel, of excellent quality with floor heights of at least 12', and not `reinforced concrete frame' and `masonry bearing walls', as used by the PET. The PET uses 10' floor heights for the medical office building (but 12' on the hospital). The PET uses a low quality rank of 2.0 (average) for both the hospital and the medical office building, yet the subject's quality appears to be better than just `average'. The PET also uses depreciation of 20%, which appears very high for a building just 8 years old. The PET's site work of$7500K appears very low for this magnitude of site area, and impact fees are not included at all (over $4.59M). The PET breaks out the subject's power plant as a separate building component, while the PAO does not. The PAO considers it a double accounting, because those related mechanical costs are already built into the hospital's base cost. However, the mechanical building is only a $2.933M component of value in the PET's analysis, which is a small amount in relation to the overall total. RULING: The PET's presentation of the Cost Approach appears to demonstrate a combination of factors that collectively suggest a gross underestimate of the costs that are in place for a building of this quality, size, type, and shape. The PET's land component and impact fees are also grossly inadequate. The PAO did establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a well-supported Cost Approach for this specialized property type. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. Ei These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00625 Parcel ID 80670080001 Petitioner name NAPLES HMA INC, Property 6101 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EJ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 67,241,022.00 67,241,022.00 67,241,022.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 67,241,022.00 67,241,022.00 67,241,022.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 67,241,022.00 67,241,022.00 67,241,022.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/21/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/21/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear, but did submit any evidence and submitted an email requesting that evidence be entertained at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 100-bed hospital known as the Physicians Regional Medical Center-Pine Ridge. It is located at 6101 Pine Ridge Road in Naples. This location is at the NE quadrant (and interchange) of I-75 and Pine Ridge Road. The subject was originally built in 1998 as a Cleveland Clinic hospital, with an addition built circa 2001. The building has 370,650 SF of area situated upon a site of 1,197,030 SF (i.e. 27.48 acres). The PAO only prepared a Cost Approach as evidence, but also included building card data, and an aerial photograph. While the PAO also includes cap rate and rental information, it is not applicable to this hearing, given the PAO does not prepare an Income Approach. Generally speaking, this is the most applicable approach for this specialized property type. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $9.50/ SF + $1.25/SF for site work/infrastructure, plus impact fees ($4,072,091) for a total land/ site work/impact fees value indication of$16,940,164. The total equates to $147,291,273, or $1,472,913/bed. The PAO presents a roster of 11 land sales and two land listings. While the subject is a very large site, it is located at an interstate interchange. The PAO's land value estimate does appear reasonable from the data provided. Regardless, the subject's main value is in the construction costs, which are substantially greater than the land value. The PAO does note a press announcement article relating to a new 128-bed Golisano Children's Hospital of SW Florida being built in Lee County with a projected cost of$1,906,250/bed (not including the land). The PAO provides a land sales/listings map, grid of land sales (and 2 listings), impact fee calculations, and Marshall Valuation data. The PAO based his calculations on excellent quality construction and also uses 11% depreciation. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a well- supported Cost Approach for this specialized property type. The Petitioner (PET) also only presents a Cost Approach. The PET includes a front picture of the subject, a summary of salient facts/conclusions, and a requested assessment of$60M. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET fails to include market- supported land value. The PET only inputs the PAO's administrative assessment for the land, which is an improper appraisal procedure. The PAO notes the subject is fireproof steel, of excellent quality with floor heights of at least 12'. The PET uses 10' floor heights for 216,068 SF of the building (but 12' on the remaining 154,582 SF), and a quality rank of 2.5 (average-to-good). The PET also uses an effective age of 17 years & 14 years. The PET uses a `shape' factor of 2, which is for square or rectangular buildings. The PAO notes (and the sketches prove) the shape is much more complicated; thus, more expensive to build. The PET's site work of$800K appears very low for this magnitude of site area, and impact fees are not included at all (over $4M). RULING: The PET's presentation of the Cost Approach appears to demonstrate a combination of factors that collectively suggest a gross underestimate of the costs that are in place for a building of this quality, size, type, and shape. The PAO did establish the presumption of correctness by virtue of providing a well-supported Cost Approach for this specialized property type. It is recommended the PAO's assessment be upheld. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but did submit evidence for consideration, and did submit an email requesting said evidence be entertained. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by property appraiser. The petition is denied and the assessment stands [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. FLORIDA 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/1 R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. IZ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00630 Parcel ID 12734640009 Petitioner name FRENCH, GLENN EUGENE Property 1850 CRAYTON RD The petitioner is: I71 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,103,467.00 1,103,467.00 1,103,467.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,103,467.00 1,103,467.00 1,103,467.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,103,467.00 1,103,467.00 1,103,467.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F,S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages: as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The Petitioner DID NOT submit any evidence. It is recommended the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/04/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/05/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 ti `v\, 11� Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier 4 These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036,194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2015-00634 Parcel ID 22435003061 Petitioner name CLARK, DAVID Property 1258 KENDARI TER The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: NAPLES, FL 34113 Decision Summary [0 Denied your petition El Granted your petition El Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 365,898.00 353,867.00 353,867.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 225,726.00 225,726.00 225,726.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 225,726.00 225,726.00 225,726.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer 1A 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 ❑ Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 12/29/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/30/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at D AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2015 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner is David Clark who owns residential property located at 1258 Kendari Terrace, Naples, Florida. The Petition was filed because the property was not granted a homestead exemption. Mr. Clark did not appear for the hearing but did indicate that he wanted his evidence considered. That evidence consisted of an email and was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 without objection. The Property Appraiser ("PA") was represented by Anabel Ybaceta, Director, Exemptions Department, and Jennifer Earle, of Homestead Exemptions Department. The PA presented seventeen pages of evidence which was admitted without objection as PA Composite Exhibit 1. David Clark is not a permanent resident of the State of Florida. His birth country is the United Kingdom. (PA Ex. 1) Petitioner has a Florida Driver's License; however that license is currently suspended and the license lists Petitioner as a non-immigrant. (PA Ex. 1) Petitioner has not filed an application for homestead exemption on the property. The property receives a 10% tax exemption as non-homestead property (Ybaceta). The property was recently listed for lease at a monthly rent of$2300. (PA Ex. 1, MLS listing) Conclusions of Law: The homestead exemption originates in Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const., which states in pertinent part: "Every person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another legally or naturally dependent upon the owner, shall be exempt from taxation thereon. . . upon establishment of right thereto in the manner prescribed by law. . .." Section 196.031(1), F. S., implements this provision and states that "[E]very person who has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who resides thereon and in good faith makes the same his or her permanent home, or the permanent home of another or others legally or naturally dependent upon said person, shall be entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . .." In order to qualify for a homestead exemption the homeowner must permanently reside on the property. Moreover, s. 196.011(1), Fla. Stat., requires that a person seeking such an exemption must make application on or before March 1 of any calendar year subject to further conditions or exceptions set forth in subsections (7) and (8). In the instant case, Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen and does not reside permanently on the subject property. Petitioner made no assertion to the contrary and the PA's evidence was competent and credible to establish this fact. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a homestead exemption. Equally important is the statutory requirement of application. While the law does permit a late filing, an application must be made. See Fla. Atty. Gen. Op. 2001-83. In the absence of an application, the Value Adjustment Board and its magistrate, cannot grant an exemption. In this case Petitioner failed to apply for a homestead exemption. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property's Appraiser's action is wrong and that Petitioner is entitled to the exemption otherwise denied him by the PA. Because Petitioner failed to apply there is no denial of an application to review. Consequently, as a matter of law, the petition must fail. Even assuming that application was not necessary, Petitioner has failed to provide any credible or relevant evidence showing that the subject property is his permanent residence, thereby supporting his petition and ultimate entitlement to the exemption. It is therefore this Special Magistrate's recommendation that the Petition be denied. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT County: Collier OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2015-00635 Parcel ID 78695209468 Petitioner name CLARK, DAVID Property 1612 BIRDIE DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ NAPLES, FL 34120 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 238,603.00 238,603.00 238,603.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 199,748.00 199,748.00 199,748.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 199,748.00 199,748.00 199,748.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/14/2015 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/18/2015 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://apps.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The subject is a 2-story single family detached home located on a golf course in the Valencia Golf& Country Club PUD. The subject was built in 2007, with 2,750 SF of adjusted building area. The PAO was represented by Mr. Bruce Stephens, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The PAO presented an aerial photo, front/rear/view photos of the subject, building card information, Cost Approach, and a Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO's Cost Approach concludes a value indicator of$277,979. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach used 5 highly comparable sales in very close proximity to the subject of similar age, architectural style, and all located on the same street backing to the same golf course. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach concludes a value of$275,000, which appears very well supportive of the PAO's assessment. Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner issued an email indicating a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance. Petitioner sent an email requesting evidence be entertained, but there was no evidence of any substance provided, other than an assertion by the Petitioner that the PAO bases his valuations "on new property sales not those of 10 year old properties that are far harder to sell". There does not appear to be any merit to this statement by the Petitioner. RULING: The PAO established and maintained the presumption of correctness. The weight and preponderance of evidence favors the PAO; thus, the assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, but the Petitioner issued an email indicating a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance. There was no evidence of any substance provided by the PET. A good cause request is not pending. Therefore, the PAO's appraisal/assessment should be upheld. The request for relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right of the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired.