The URL can be used to link to this page

2016 Special Magistrates Recommendations 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 Codee Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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# 2016-00004 Parcel ID 14240001787 Petitioner name RW NC WOPPERER REV TRUST Property 1030 3RD AVE S The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 17] 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 661,200.00 661,200.00 661,200.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 661,200.00 661,200.00 661,200.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 661,200.00 661,200.00 611,200.00 *AII 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/01/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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 Robert W. Wopperer and Natalie C. Wopperer Revocable Trust, which owns a condominium located at 1030 3rd Avenue S., Unit 508, Naples, Florida. Both Robert and Natalie Wopperer are beneficial owners of the subject property. Both Mr. and Mrs. Wopperer were present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. All persons present were sworn. Petitioner is appealing the denial of a homestead exemption. Petitioner's evidence, consisting of eleven pages was admitted as P. Ex. 2 without objection. The Petition was admitted as P. Ex. 1. The PAO had their 29-page package admitted without objection. Petitioner purchased the property on December 21, 2015 (P. Ex. 1--HUD statement). The Unit was supposed to be completed well before the end of the year, but there were problems with the finishing work. (R. Wopperer) The Wopperers were sleeping at a friend's house in the month of December, as they oversaw completion of the interior painting. They closed on the property on the 21st without completion of the final punch list. (Wopperer) A Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the Collier County Building Department on December 17, 2015, and the Wopperers moved into the unit before the holidays. (P. Ex. 2, p. 10). The Wopperers purchased a mattress in November and slept on the mattress during the final weeks of December. (P. Ex. 2, p.7; R. Wopperer) Petitioner applied for a homestead exemption on January 14, 2016 and indicated January 7, 2016, as the date of occupancy and December 28, 2015, as the date of permanent residency. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 3-5) The application was held in a pending status until the individual units were assigned parcel numbers. (Wopperer; Ybaceta) The application was corrected with the proper parcel number and re-signed by the Wopperers on February 2, 2016, at which time, the date of permanent residency was changed to December 1, 2015 and the date of occupancy was changed from January 7, 2016 to December 1, 2015. (PAO Ex. 1, p.17) The PAO requested an explanation for the late residency documentation. The response provided by the Wopperers stated that they did not occupy the home until January 7, 2016 because the home was incomplete. (PAO Ex. 1, p.8) Mr. Wopperer retracted this statement saying that he was misinformed by the clerk as to what she wanted. (R. Wopperer) The PAO denied the application on May 31, 2016 for failure to establish a permanent residence and lack of residency documents. (PAO Ex. 1) The denial complied with s. 196.193, Fla. Stat., and was valid. Petitioner was unable to receive mail at their new home until mid- to late January 1, 2016 because the mailboxes were not installed on the site until then. A letter from the Property manager of the condominium was provided. (P. Ex. 1, p.9; R. Wopperer). The lack of a physical mailbox delayed the assignment of a physical address which likewise delayed their procurement of new driver licenses. (Wopperers) Petitioner's 2015 federal income tax return listed the subject property as their residence. (P. Ex. 2) Conclusions of Law: Every person who, on January 1, has the legal or beneficial title to real property and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence is entitled to an exemption for homestead. Section 196.031, Fla. Stat. As a preliminary matter, the Special Magistrate must review the PAO's denial of an exemption and determine if the denial is valid under s. 196.193, Fla. Stat. This statute requires that the PAO explain its reasons for denying an exemption application with sufficient clarity that a reasonable person can understand the specific attributes of the applicant or the applicant's use of the subject property which formed the basis for the denial. The Notice of Disapproval was admitted as part of PAO Ex. 1 and was a valid denial under the statute. Determining whether or when a Petitioner intends to make Florida his or her homestead can be difficult, especially when a taxpayer has recently acquired a property and is still in the process of moving to the residence. Interestingly, Section 196.031,Fla. Stat., which is cited by the PAO, does not specifically state that the property for which the exemption is sought must be occupied by January 1st. It is however understood that to make a property one's residence, one must in fact "reside" there. Rule 12D-7.007, Fla. Admin. Code, does state that "for one to make a certain parcel of land his permanent home, he must reside thereon with a present intention of living there indefinitely and with no present intention of moving therefrom." To assist in this determination of intention, the legislature provided the PAO with a list of factors in s. 196.015, Fla. Stat., to consider when determining the intent of a person to establish a permanent residence for purposes of a homestead exemption. However, these factors, which include possession of certain residency documents such as a valid Florida driver's license and a voter registration card, are not conclusive. While the documents and events listed in the statute do provide an objective indication of a homeowner's intention, they are merely indicators. One is not required to have a Florida driver's license on January 1st in order to establish homestead. Petitioner did prove their ownership of the property on or before January 1. Although R. Wopperer indicated in his explanation letter that he did not occupy the unit until January 7, 2016, which was confirmed by the original homestead application, the Special Magistrate was persuaded by Mr. Wopperer's testimony that he did not understand the true purpose of the question. Moreover this date was changed when the application was signed in February. Because these statutory residency documents (indicators) are often equated with residency itself in both the minds of PAO staff and the taxpayer, there is often confusion when completing these specific questions regarding occupancy and residency. In weighing Wopperer's testimony along with all other credible and relevant evidence, the greater weight of the evidence showed that Mr. and Mrs. Wopperer did in fact occupy the dwelling and slept there before January 1. Irrespective of the dates on the driver's license and vehicle registration, Petitioner showed that their clear intent in purchasing the property was to establish a permanent residence in Naples, Florida with no present intention to move therefrom. (R. Wopperer). The Wopperers took steps to do this by ordering furniture, listing this address on their 2015 tax return, relinquishing their New York license and registering their vehicles in Florida. All their actions show that at the time they purchased this unit in 2015, they intended to make it their permanent home. There is no ambiguity about their actions to suggest otherwise. The mere lateness of the residency documents was attributable to the addressing delay. The fact that this very unit was not assigned a parcel number at the time they made application only supports their claim that there were unusual delays in completing this development, which delays had consequences affecting the Wopperers' ability to prove to the satisfaction of the PAO that this was their permanent residence. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of their exemption application was wrong, i.e., that Petitioner was entitled to a homestead exemption. After considering the credible and relevant evidence presented by both parties, the Special Magistrate concludes that Petitioner has met this burden. The greater weight of the credible and relevant evidence shows their intention to establish their permanent residence on the subject property. The Special Magistrate therefore recommends that the petition be granted. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 Rule 12D-16.002 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Florida Administrative Codee Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2016-00027 Parcel ID 71717519402 Petitioner name LEWIS, BARBARA A Property 4096 ROYAL WOODBLVD The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 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 204,636.00 204,636.00 204,636.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 204,636.00 204,636.00 204,636.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 204,636.00 204,636.00 154,636.00 *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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 11/01/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM 0 PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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 Barbara Lewis, who owns a residence located at 4096 Royal Wood Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Petitioner became the owner of the property in December, 2014. Petitioner's Petition was admitted as P. Ex. 1 without objection. A second package consisting of 4 pages of documents was admitted without objection as P. Ex. 2. This package included a Certificate of Approval naming Petitioner as buyer (and new owner), a Warranty Deed to Petitioner's father's trust, a Declaration of homeowner's insurance from April 2014 to April 2015, and a Sirius Radio bill and refund check addressed to Petitioner at the Royal Wood address. Petitioner offered a number of documents at the hearing that had not previously been exchanged with the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO). These documents were admitted without objection as P. Composite Ex. 3. The PAO was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle, who had been sworn in during earlier hearings and were reminded they were under oath. Petitioner was sworn in. The PAO's evidence package was admitted as PAO Composite Ex. 1 without objection. Petitioner acquired the house in 2014 and moved to Naples in June of 2015 (P. Ex. 3, Bill of Lading) but continued to operate a business she co-owned with her sister in Law Vegas until she finally terminated all operations in 2016. (Lewis) She was unable to find employment in Naples, which hindered her ability to terminate all connections with Las Vegas. (Lewis) Lewis did obtain some part time employment in 2015, which was evidenced by invoices she remitted for payment and which were admitted as part of P. Ex. 3. In addition, Petitioner clearly lived in Naples during 2015, as she had proof of electric and water bulls as well as medical services that were received in 2015. Petitioner applied for a homestead exemption on January 19, 2016, and indicated on the application that she had last become a permanent resident on September 1, 2015. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 4). She also indicated on the application her date of occupancy was January 15, 2016. (PAO Ex. 1, p.4). Petitioner obtained a Florida's Driver's License on January 15, 2016, at which point she relinquished her Nevada license. She was registered as a Collier County voter on January 14, 2016. When she registered her motor vehicle on May 4, 2015, she used her Las Vegas address. The PAO denied the application on or about May 31, 2016 on grounds that she failed to establish permanent residence and failed to have residency documents by January 1, 2016 (PAO Ex. 1, p. 14; Ybaceta). Conclusions of Law: Every person who, on January 1, has the legal or beneficial title to real property and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence is entitled to an exemption for homestead. Section 196.031, Fla. Stat. As a preliminary matter, the Special Magistrate must review the PAO's denial of an exemption and determine if the denial is valid under s. 196.193, Fla. Stat. This statute requires that the PAO explain its reasons for denying an exemption application with sufficient clarity that a reasonable person can understand the specific attributes of the applicant or the applicant's use of the subject property which formed the basis for the denial. The Notice of Disapproval was admitted as part of PAO Ex. 1 and was a valid denial under the statute. Determining whether or when a Petitioner intends to make Florida her homestead is difficult, which is why the legislature saw fit to give the PAO a list of factors it can consider when determining the intent of a person to establish a permanent residence for purposes of a homestead exemption. However, these factors, which include possession of a valid Florida Driver's license and a voter registration card, are not conclusive. While these various documents and events do provide an objective indication of a homeowner's intention, they are merely indicators. One is not required to have a Florida driver's license on January 1st in order to establish homestead. Petitioner did establish her move to Florida in 2015 with a bill of lading dated June 8, 2015. She also showed that she was working and living in Naples in 2015. (P. Ex. 3) However, many of the documents showing she incurred services and expenses in Naples were dated in the Spring of 2015, at which time Petitioner also indicated on her vehicle registration that her home address was Las Vegas. (PAO Ex. 1) The evidence does show that Petitioner was uncertain of her intentions during 2015, evidently waiting to obtain full time employment before abandoning her business in Las Vegas. The evidence was clear when she relinquished her Nevada driver's license on January 15,2016 that she intended to make the Royal Wood property her permanent residence. Although the PAO argues that this intent first manifested itself as of that date as evidenced by her statement of occupancy in the application, Petitioner adequately explained that she misunderstood what the agent was asking at the PAO counter when she supplied that answer and stated that she had occupied the property long before January 15, 2016. (Lewis) This testimony was credible given the supporting documentary evidence; moreover, occupying the premises does not resolve the question as of residence. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO's denial of her exemption application was wrong, i.e., that Petitioner was entitled to a homestead exemption. After considering the credible and relevant evidence presented by both parties, the Special Magistrate concludes that Petitioner has met this burden. The greater weight of the credible and relevant evidence supports her intention to establish Royal Wood as her permanent residence. The Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be granted. 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 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# 2016-00034 Parcel ID 00727240004 Petitioner name LORA, RAUL Property 215 GRIFFIN RD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value 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 517,948.00 517,948.00 517,948.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 517,948.00 517,948.00 517,948.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 517,948.00 517,948.00 517,948.00 *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 p Use classification, specify Agricultural ❑ 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/28/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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, Raul Lora, is appealing the denial of an agricultural classification. He owns property located at 215 Griffin Road, which is improved with his home. The Property Appraiser ("PA") was represented by Dan Eby and Ben Kirkland, both agricultural appraisers. The PA's Evidence consisted of 24 pages and was admitted as PA Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner's evidence consisted of his Petition, which was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and 5 pages of documents, which were admitted as Composite Exhibit 2. The property consists of 4.77 acres and has enjoyed an agricultural classification for goat farming for many years. In spite of letters from the PAO requesting information regarding the continued commercial agricultural use of the property from 2014, 2015 and 2016, the PAO received no information from the taxpayer to show that the property was still being used as a goat farm. (Kirkland) The last documented observation of goat farming took place in May, 2014. The property was again inspected on May 5, 2015, and December 18, 2015. During both inspections no goats or any other commercial agricultural activity was observed. The property was inspected on January 8, 2016, February 10, 2016 and again on March 25, 2016, and no agricultural activity was observed. (Kirkland; PAO Ex. 1). Having received no completed Agricultural Questionnaire from the taxpayer in response to its July 28, 2015 letter and seeing no agricultural activity on the property, the PAO issued a Notice of Disapproval on February 10, 2016 citing s. 193.461, Fla. Stat., as grounds for the denial. No goats existed on the property as of January 1, 2016. (Lora) The goats had either died or escaped the fence enclosure in previous years and not been recovered by Petitioner (Lora). Petitioner never sold any of the goats or goat products during the time that he owned them. (Lora) Petitioner has recently placed pigs on the property. (Lora) Conclusions of Law: Petitioner has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a bona fide agricultural use exists on the property as of January 1, 2016. It is not the Property Appraiser's burden to show that their denial was proper. Section 193.461(3)(b), Fla., Stat., provides that only those lands used primarily for bona fide agricultural uses may be classified agricultural. It then defines a bona fide use as a "good faith commercial agricultural use," and sets forth a number of actors to be considered when making this determination: (1) length of time the land has been used; (2) whether the use is continuous; (3) purchase price; (4) size of land as it relates to the use; (5) efforts to care sufficiently for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices; (6) the existence of a lease and its terms; and (7) any other factors that may be relevant, such as profit motive. No one factor is determinative, although the actual physical use of the property as of January 1st still remains the guidepost for the agricultural determination. See Fisher v. Schooley, 371 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Bystrom v. Union Land Investments, Inc., 477 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Subsection (4) requires the PAO to reclassify the lands as nonagricultural when the land is no longer being used for agricultural purposes. In this case the evidence clearly showed that as of January 1,2016, Petitioner was no longer using his property for the raising of goats. Petitioner admitted this fact. Moreover there was no other commercial agricultural use being conducted on the property. Consequently, the reclassification of Petitioner's property from agricultural was proper. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof, 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 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 # 2016-00035 Parcel ID 46170480006 Petitioner name DIFUSCO, SELENA, VICTOR TOM DIFUSC{ Property 5683 RATTLESNAKE HAM RD The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ 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 p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 93,590.00 93,590.00 93,590.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 72,431.00 72,431.00 72,431.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 72,431.00 72,431.00 72,431.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/22/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/22/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. The owner/Petitioner (PET) did NOT attend the hearing. The PET did check the box in the petition to have their evidence considered. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a residential condominium built in 1980. It is located at 5683 Rattlesnake Hammock Road (unit A-302), Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 1,054 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$93,590. The subject last sold for $72,000 in 11/2013. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, evidence list, screen shot of the subject's tax roll information, 11/2013 deed of the subject for $72K, an aerial photo, building sketch, subject/comparable photographs, Sales Comparison Approach chart, aerial photo noting the location of the subject & comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 3 improved sales that all closed during 2015 within the subject's Golf View Manor II condo with the same exact unit size. These sales are given the greatest weight & indicate an average price of$109K, resulting in an assessment to sale ratio of 85.9%, which is highly supportive of the just value being contested. The PAO also provides sales from 4 other condos in the immediate neighborhood. Those sales are also of similar 2-bedroom units of the same (or similar) vintage of buildings, and all of those sales closed for at least $110,000; thus, they lend support to sales in the subject's building. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did NOT appear for this hearing, but did check the box on the petition requesting that their evidence be considered. The PET submitted the subject's TRIM notice and also 4 closed sales that took place in 2016. Those sales are not timely for consideration at this hearing, as they all closed well after the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET should be submitting information leading up to the assessment date, and in particular sales data that closed during 2015 in this particular case (as was submitted by the PAO). The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness; thus, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00040 Parcel ID 66679475068 Petitioner name STALLKAMP, THOMAS T Property 1112 DORMIEDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary tJ 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 3,907,739.00 3,907,739.00 3,907,739.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,634,337.00 3,634,337.00 3,634,337.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,634,337.00 3,634,337.00 3,634,337.00 "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 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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 # 2016-00041 Parcel ID 38904080004 Petitioner name RAIMONDI, GUY& KATHLEEN Property 4210 68THAVE NE The petitioner is: EI taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition EI 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 176,535.00 176,535.00 168,746.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 150,935.00 150,935.00 150,935.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 150,935.00 150,935.00 150,935.00 *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 was reduced at the hearing and granted in-part. 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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/17/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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. During the course of the hearing, the Property Appraiser reduced the assessement from $176,535 to $168,746 and was granted. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 1 1/1 2 • 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 # 2016-00044 Parcel ID 57927520001 Petitioner name DAVID & MICHELE DILLON Property 776 HULLCT The petitioner is: IZ 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 1,285,839.00 1,285,839.00 1,285,839.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,238,785.00 1,238,785.00 1,238,785.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,238,785.00 1,238,785.00 1,238,785.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values 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 opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 Rule 12D-16.002 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Florida Administrative Codee Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036, 194.171(2),196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition# 2016-00055 Parcel ID 36511880000 Petitioner name CASTELLANOS-DANIEL, MARIBEL Property 4148 32NDAVE SW The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary El 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 176,133.00 176,133.00 176,133.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 176,133.00 176,133.00 176,133.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 176,133.00 176,133.00 176,133.00 *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 0 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/28/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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, Maribel Castellanos-Daniel, is appealing a denial of homestead exemption for property located at 4148 32nd Avenue SW, Naples, Florida. She was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. All persons were sworn in. Petitioner offered a letter with the attached TRIM, which was admitted without objection as P. Ex. 1. She also offered three FPL electric bills which were admitted without objection as P. Ex. 2. PAO offered their evidence package consisting of 26 pages which was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1. Petitioner purchased the home in 2014, applied for her homestead exemption on June 20, 2014 and received her exemption for 2015. (PAO Ex. 1) Petitioner is a single mother with three children. She and her children moved to Tampa in September, 2015 and lived with her former mother-in-law, who was ill. (Petitioner) Ultimately the mother-in law had surgery in April; however, at the time of the move, Petitioner did not know the extent of her illness and whether surgery was indicated. She testified that her mother in law needed assistance with personal care. (Petitioner) Her brother in law resided at the Naples home during her absence. (Petitioner; PAO Ex. 1, p.20) In September, 2015, she had her driver's license and her vehicle registration changed to reflect Tampa as her residence. (PAO Ex. 1) Her voter registration was also changed at that time as is the Tax Collector/DMV's custom. Emails from the Elections Office indicated that Petitioner changed her address back to Collier County in June, 2016. (PAO Ex. 1, p.18) Her Homestead Exemption Receipt was returned to the PAO with a USPS label showing the Tampa address. (PAO Ex. 1, p.10). When completing the homestead questionnaire dated March 4, 2016, Petitioner indicated that she moved to Tampa temporarily and that the Tampa address was only good until August, 2016. (PAO, Ex. 1, p.11) PAO's investigator went by the residence in September 8, 2016, at which time the brother in law was present at the home. The brother in law stated that Petitioner resided in Tampa. The PAO Investigation Report stated that the property was listed on the MLS during 2015 until it was withdrawn on February 18, 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p.20) The PAO notified Petitioner by letter dated May 20, 2016, that the homestead exemption was being removed because she no longer resided on the property. This denial cited the statute and was sufficient under s. 196.193, Fla. Stat., to constitute a valid denial (removal). Conclusions of Law: Every person, who on January 1, has the legal or beneficial title to real property and who in good faith makes the property her permanent residence is entitled to an exemption for homestead. Section 196.031, Fla. Stat. Petitioner asserted that her move to Tampa was temporary and that she only moved because her mother-in law was ill. Unfortunately the only evidence to establish this fact was Petitioner's testimony. Section 196.012(17), Fla. Stat., defines "permanent residence" as "that place where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment to which, whenever absent, he or she has the intention of returning." The issue of intent is a difficult one to assess, especially as the only direct evidence of a taxpayer's intent comes from the self-serving testimony of that taxpayer. That is why the PAO is instructed by s. 196.105, Fla. Stat., to look at certain documents and circumstances when establishing whether a taxpayer intends to establish a permanent residence. Although none of these factors is conclusive, they are relevant to the inquiry, and are objective, albeit indirect, indicators of a taxpayer's intent. Petitioner states that she changed her documents to reflect the Tampa address as her residence so she could enroll her kids in school while she was staying in Tampa. Petitioner changed her residence on all official documents including her vehicle registration, although the vehicle registration was not necessary for school purposes. Petitioner also failed to explain why the property was listed for sale in 2015 through February, 2016, if she intended to return to the home. Although Petitioner did return in April after her mother in law's surgery, as of March of that same year, she had indicated in the Homestead Questionnaire her intention to stay until August. According to her testimony, she picked up and relocated two small children and a baby 160 miles away to care for a former mother in law without any real understanding of the extent of her illness and how long she would be needed. The lack of certainty about the duration of her stay from the date she moved to Tampa to the date of her return in April only served to support the conclusion that she did not have the fixed intention to return to the Naples property. Although the PAO cited s. 196.061, Fla. Stat., which provides that the rental of homestead "shall constitute abandonment" of one's homestead, this statute is not applicable to this case. There was insufficient evidence to prove that the Naples home was being rented to anyone. While there was evidence that the home was occupied by her brother-in-law as of the date of the investigator's inspection and from January through March of 2016, there was no proof that someone, including the brother in law, was actually renting the home. Petitioner's testimony that this move was always intended to be a temporary one doesn't resolve the issue, especially in light of the listing of the house for sale. The real question is whether Petitioner intended to return to the Naples home when she initially moved to Tampa. The greater weight of the evidence showed that, although Petitioner was not certain of the extent of her stay with her former mother in law, Petitioner did not have a clear intention to return to her homesteaded property. The Petitioner had the burden of proof in this case to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the removal of the homestead exemption by the PAO was wrong, i.e., that she did not abandon her homestead, but rather intended at all times to return to it and did not intend to establish a permanent residence in Tampa. The credible and relevant evidence was not sufficient to meet her burden; rather the majority of the evidence showed that the PAO was correct in its removal of the exemption. Consequently, 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. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final [' These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00061 Parcel ID 68986771987 Petitioner name POLITO, JAMES J &LORI JEAN Property 9243 MARBLE STONEDR The petitioner is: © taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary VI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,010,679.00 1,010,679.00 1,010,679.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,010,679.00 802,642.00 802,642.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,010,679.00 752,642.00 752,642.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 [120-9.021(8)(b), F.A.C.] IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 # 2016-00063 Parcel ID 59960002380 Petitioner name ROSENTHAL, TODD Property 16044 TREBBIO WAY The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 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 3,217,002.00 3,217,002.00 3,217,002.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,166,519.00 3,166,519.00 3,166,519.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,116,519.00 3,116,519.00 3,116,519.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 # 2016-00085 Parcel ID 56943800007 Petitioner name AKLO TRUST- KARL OLEKSIUK Property 1209 ORANGECT The petitioner is: 0 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 674,640.00 674,640.00 674,640.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 592,442.00 592,442.00 592,442.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 542,442.00 542,442.00 542,442.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 # 2016-00101 Parcel ID 66667503609 Petitioner name SLB HOLDINGS LLC, C/O TRB ADVISORSb Property 7599 BAY COLONYDR The petitioner is: I taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ 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 21,861,895.00 19,097,095.00 19,097,095.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,803,542.00 10,803,542.00 10,803,542.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,803,542.00 10,803,542.00 10,803,542.00 *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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 # 2016-00105 Parcel ID 61870001087 Petitioner name SL& PM RECHTER REV TRUST Property 7680 NAPLES HERITAGE DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition 0 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 549,665.00 549,665.00 522,929.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 549,665.00 549,665.00 522,929.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 499,665.00 499,665.00 472,929.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition was reduced at the hearing and granted in-part. 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 11/16/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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. During the course of the hearing, the Property Appraiser reduced the assessement from $549,665 to $522,929 and was granted. 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 ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00110 Parcel ID 75115307429 Petitioner name DRENI, DENIS Property 15365 SUMMIT PLACECIR The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: 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 233,204.00 233,204.00 233,204.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 233,204.00 233,204.00 233,204.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 233,204.00 233,204.00 233,204.00 *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 0 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Davia Mazur Davia Mazur 10/24/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at 0 AM 0 PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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 property received a 2015 homestead exemption after Petitioner Denis Dreni filed a Petition for a late-filed homestead, which was granted. The 2015 Amended Notice of Proposed Property Taxes sent to the subject address in September 2015, showing the newly-granted homestead exemption, was returned "not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward" (PAO Evidence, p. 9). The January 2016 Homestead Renewal Receipt, March 2016 Homestead Questionnaire and May Homestead Removal Letter, the latter of which was sent by certified mail, were all returned to the PAO with the same or a similar undeliverable notation (PAO Evidence, pp. 10-12). Accordingly, the PAO removed the homestead exemption for 2016. Petitioner once again filed a late 2016 homestead application and request for reinstatement (PAO Evidence, p. 13), saying he had been out of the country for a few weeks and that the mail from the PAO had been lost (PAO Evidence, p. 14). The undisputed evidence shows the subject property was leased to Donald and Adele Westall from 2/23/15-2/23/16 for $1,950 per month (PAO Evidence, p. 52-3). The lease was renewed at the rental rate of$2,015 per month from 2/23/16-17 (PAO Evidence, pp. 54-60). In addition, Petitioner's driver's license has a mailing address of 10831 Alvara Way, Bonita Springs, in Lee County (PAO Evidence, p. 16). The Lee County Property Appraiser's records reflect a deed indicating Petitioner purchased a home in May 2015 at that address (PAO Evidence, p. 18). Petitioner is registered to vote in Lee County as of 8/3/15 and voted there on 3/15/16 (PAO Evidence, p. 24). He is not registered to vote in Collier County (PAO Evidence, p. 27). Petitioner also owns a unit adjacent to the Bonita Spring property with a mailing address of 10831 Alvara Way (PAO Evidence, p. 23). All other evidence points toward permanent residence at 10831 Alvara Way. On July 6, 2016, Petitioner deeded 10831 Alvara Way to a trust. He stated that his mother lives there. The deed reflects 10831 Alvara Way as Petitioner's post office address (PAO Evidence, p. 34). Petitioner testified that his family has no homestead exemption anywhere and is entitled to one. He said he purchased multiple properties but would like the subject property to be his homestead. He said he travels extensively for work and his wife and child split their time between the 10831 Alvara Way property and his mother-in-law's house, the address of which he did not identify. He confirmed that the subject property is leased to the Westalls and that he has been and still is collecting the stated monthly rent. Conclusions of Law: Section 196.061, Florida Statutes, states: (1) The rental of all or substantially all of a dwelling previously claimed to be a homestead for tax purposes shall constitute the abandonment of such dwelling as a homestead, and the abandonment continues until the dwelling is physically occupied by the owner. However, such abandonment of the homestead after January 1 of any year does not affect the homestead exemption for tax purposes for that particular year unless the property is rented for more than 30 days per calendar year for 2 consecutive years." In addition, Section 196.012(13), Florida Statutes, defining real estate used as a homestead states, "Property rented for more than 6 months is presumed to be used for commercial purposes." Petitioner admitted that the subject property was leased to the Westalls from February 2015 through February 2017 and that he is collecting rent. There was no evidence that petitioner and his family reside there. Based on the documentary evidence submitted by the PAO and detailed in the Findings of Fact, the family resides in Lee County at 10831 Alvara Way. The Petition is denied because Petitioner abandoned the subject property under Section 196.061, Florida Statutes, by renting it to the Westalls under the two leases in evidence. 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 # 2016-00113 Parcel ID 81740000101 Petitioner name KYLE, KENTIGERN S Property 4881 MAHOGANY RIDGEDR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 12] 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 783,640.00 783,640.00 612,123.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 708,508.00 708,508.00 612,123.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 708,508.00 708,508.00 612,123.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 and cost analysis presented by the petitioner. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$736,216 to $612,123. [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 # 2016-00121 Parcel ID 22510006051 Petitioner name SWANSON, STEVEN D Property 240 CHESHIREWAY The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 21 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 1,460,835.00 1,460,835.00 1,200,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,460,835.00 1,460,835.00 1,200,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,410,835.00 1,410,835.00 1,150,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F,S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of $1,200,000 [12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. The evidence included: sales data and cost information to support a lower value. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTNT 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 # 2016-00130 Parcel ID 39592720005 Petitioner name RAIMONDI, GUY A KATHLEEN Property 4290 8TH STNE The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition I 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 336,889.00 336,889.00 302,936.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 154,124.00 154,124.00 154,124.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 104,124.00 104,124.00 104,124.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 was reduced at the hearing and granted in-part. 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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/17/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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. During the course of the hearing, the Property Appraiser reduced the assessement from $336,889 to $302,936 and was granted. 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 # 2016-00132 Parcel ID 45960240004 Petitioner name KRISTEN JASINSKI Property 2225 23RDSTSW The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34117 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition WI 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 2,273,998.00 2,273,998.00 1,449,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,976,880.00 1,976,880.00 1,449,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,976,880.00 1,976,880.00 1,449,000.00 *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 12/09/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Ms. Kristin Jasinski [real estate broker], who did attend the hearing. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of the hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is large single family home built in 2000, and it is located on a large lot of 5.27 acres that backs to a drainage canal. It is located in Golden Gates Estates at 2225 23rd Street SW, Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 8,037 SF. The subject has a screen-enclosed pool. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,273,998. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, plat map, building sketch, front/rear/pool/patio/interior photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, map noting the location of comparable improved/land sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, impact fee calculations, "The Knickerbocker" [subject] rate info (on line) to rent the subject, and the subject's building card information. The subject is apparently rented on daily and short term periods for various special events, gatherings, weddings, family reunions, etc. However, neither party to this hearing presents an Income Approach. Based upon its building size, large lot size, and eastern/rural location in Collier County, the subject is an atypical property in the market. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $31,500/AC X 5.27 acres = $166,005. The PAO considers a total of 3 land sales that vary in size from 1.14 acres to 2.27 acres from the surrounding (rural) area that do appear to form a tight range of value on a per acre basis, yet all 3 are considerably smaller than the subject's 5.27 acres. Land sales of the subject's size are extremely scarce. Impact fees of$22,205 are also considered by the PAO. The PAO provides a location map for the land sales (same map that includes the improved sales). The PAO then adds site improvements ($30,000) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($2,130,654) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,348,864. The PAO uses a construction price/SF of$301.99, then applies 15% depreciation to that figure to the majority of the building components. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales that all closed during 2015, as well as 2 current listings. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$310/SF of adjusted area X 8,037 SF = $2,491,000. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his sales & listings. The PAO was able to locate two comparables with land areas as high as 5.00 acres and 7.47 acres. Also, the PAO was able to locate 3 comparables with adjusted building sizes as high as 6,761 SF, 8,277 SF, and 7,413 SF. The problem with the PAO's 6 improved comparables is that all 6 are located west of Collier Boulevard, 4 are located west of Logan Boulevard, and 2 are located west of I-75. The respective distance of each improved comparable is far, yet this appears to be an unavoidable problem when trying to locate comparables for a unique and large subject of this size. It is interesting to note that all 4 of the sales & listings east of I-75 range in price between $1,025,000 and $1,449,000. The two highest properties (i.e. sales #2 @ $2.65M & #4 at $3.25M) are both located west of 1-75, and are therefore given far less consideration by me in this ruling. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, yet the subject does appear to be a very unusual property. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did appear for this hearing. The PET submitted a cover letter, a 3rd party appraisal [by Mr. Gary Moser of Carroll& Carroll, Inc.], and various MLS sheets for numerous properties, including the subject's prior MLS for $1.38M in 2/2011. The cover letter described the subject's history of ownership, past attempts to sell the subject, `value per square foot for large homes on acreage', and ht subject's `quality of finishes and construction comments by the PET. The appraisal of the subject was specifically prepared for this hearing, and the fee appraiser concludes a value of$1.15M. The appraisal was based upon 7,105 SF of livable area, with non-livable areas adjusted separately, as is commonly done by fee appraisers. The appraiser (Mr. Moser) apparently is a certified residential appraiser with no professional designation, yet his qualifications are not provided as part of the appraisal document in evidence. The PAO notes his sale #1 was a distressed sale that actually went to contract (per the appraisal) in 7/2014. PET's sale #2 was a disqualified sale, due to a lis pendens associated with the sale of that property to satisfy a commercial debt. PET's sale #3 [6.44 miles NW of the subject] closed for $1.81M on 5 acres with 8,536 SF of livable (not adjusted) square feet. It is noted that the fee appraiser does make significant time adjustments from the respective contract dates up to the assessment date to account for market appreciation. The fee appraiser makes many adjustments to #3, resulting in a final adjusted price indication from that sale of$1,303,600. In reference to the subject's listing history, the PET indicates it was listed for $1.38M, then reduced to $1.35M & terminated in 9/2011. It had previously been listed before that for $1.25M, and terminated in 5/2012. It was also listed during 2012/13 for $1.48M. In reference to the `value per square foot for large homes on acreage' analysis performed by the PET, the PET states she researched 11 (combined) properties `since' (not prior to) 1/1/2016 of sales with land areas of 2-7 acres having 4,000 SF or more. She should have analyzed sales prior to the assessment date. Regardless, the PET concludes 3 different ranges for Logan Woods ($167-$215), Livingston Woods ($257-$274), and Golden Gate Estates ($116-$133), respectively. She did not provide how many properties were available in each of those categories; however, she did indicate the subject's assessment per square foot appears unreasonable (i.e. $320/SF livable, based upon 7,105 SF, or $283/SF adjusted, based upon 8,037 SF). In reference to the PET's arguments regarding the quality of finishes and construction are reasonably nice and adequate, but they more give the appearance of quality than actually being of high quality. The PAO does provide many interior subject photographs, as does the PET's appraisal provided in evidence. The PET argues the subject's quality does not rise to the $301/SF level provided in the PAO's cost new figure (i.e. before depreciation is applied). RULING: The subject appears to be an `over-improvement', which is a form of functional obsolescence. In the subject's case, perhaps an argument can easily be made that not only is the building size excessive, but its land area is too, in relation to what is typical of the market. It is clear that both the PAO & the PET had difficulty finding comparable data within a relatively short distance of the subject, as both had to travel miles away to find a sufficient number of sales in an attempt to prove their respective positions. Based upon the total evidence provided, there are two major areas of focus I have in an attempt to determine a reasonable assessment for the subject. FIRST, it is interesting to note that all 4 of the PAO's sales & listings east of I-75 ranged in price between $1,025,000 and $1,449,000. The two highest properties (i.e. sales #2 @ $2.65M & #4 at $3.25M) are both located west of I-75, and are therefore given far less consideration by me in this ruling. SECONDLY, the subject DOES HAVE a sufficiently recent listing history that can serve as a gauge to reasonableness. The PET's evidence indicated it was listed for $1.38M, then reduced to $1.35M & terminated in 9/2011. It had previously been listed before that for $1.25M, and terminated in 5/2012. It was also listed during 2012/13 for $1.48M. The PET's own fee appraisal does indicate a time adjustment was applied to all of the sales used in that appraisal. Furthermore, time has transpired since all of those listing dates. Therefore, I give strong weight to the upper end of the listings (i.e. $1.48M). I also give strong weight to the `gross price' (i.e. unadjusted) of PAO's sale #1 ($1.449M), which happens to be the highest of the 4 market unadjusted indicators east of I-75 used by the PAO. At least from the data presented, there appears to be strong market resistance to pay above this price threshold (in terms of GROSS DOLLARS), regardless of land and/or building size. Given the fact that the subject's most recent listing price $1,480,400 (as of 2/20/2013) is $793,598 greater than the PAO's assessment of$2,273,998, assessment relief appears to be warranted and justified. In my final analysis, I give strongest weight to the PAO's Sale #1 gross sales price of$1.449M (unadjusted), given it is the highest sale provided by either party is east of I-75. I do not give consideration to any further adjustments (by either party), due to an apparent `price ceiling' that appears to be impacting the subject's market among large homes situated upon large lots. Given the continued appreciation beyond the 1/22/2015 closing date of that sale, I do not consider any further cost of sale (COS) deduction warranted in this situation. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness. The weight and preponderance of evidence favors the PET. Based upon the verbal and written evidence presented, I recommend the subject's just value should be lowered to $1,449,000. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. However, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices does not exist in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. The Special Magistrate hereby remands the assessment to the Property Appraiser with the specific directions contained in this Worksheet to be followed for establishing just value. 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 # 2016-00137 Parcel ID 00168040601 Petitioner name DUFF & PHELPS Property 1100 IMMOKALEE RD 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 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 20,924,007.00 20,924,007.00 20,924,007.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 20,871,980.00 20,871,980.00 20,871,980.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 20,871,980.00 20,871,980.00 20,871,980.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/09/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Duff & Phelps, yet the PET did not attend the hearing. The PET did check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance & that the PET wanted their evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is newspaper production facility building built in 2009. It is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, east of US-41, and west of Goodlette-Frank Road. The subject's street address is 1100 Immokalee Road in Naples, Florida. The subject has 201,375 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 19.85 gross acres (14.9 net of lakes & buffers). The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $20,924,007. The PAO officials were sworn in earlier this same hearing day. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos of the subject building, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2015 deed for the subject, Marshall Valuation support, cap rate information, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable land sales), roster of improved sales, zoning map, floor plans, and improved sales map. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. At the hearing, I accepted a 1-page piece of evidence from the PAO regarding the subject's estimated Collier County impact fees. The PAO had already included the same dollar amount ($1,452,639) in impact fees within his Cost Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 7 land sales. Land Sales #1-#4 are much smaller sites, yet all located in close proximity to the subject. They sold in the range of$14.13-$22.26/SF. Land Sales #5 & #7 are more comparable in size, and they sold for $17.18/SF and $11.73/SF, respectively. The PAO concludes a land value of$10.00/square foot, or $8,646,660,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($19,332,045) and impact fees ($1,452,639) for a final Cost Approach value of$29,500,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 3 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Improved Sales #1 & #2 are located in Collier County, while Sale #3 is in Ft. Myers. The building ages are not provided in the PAO's sales grid, yet (from the CoStar sheets in evidence), they were built in 2012, 1999, and 2007, respectively. Thus, the improved sales are all fairly modern, like the subject. The PAO concludes $125.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$25,000,000. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$16/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 35%, loaded OAR of 8.60% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$23,000,000. The PAO only provides generalized support for his inputs, particularly his `fee simple' market rent estimate. The PAO includes a `Commercial Petition Addendum" in evidence relating to various market norms & rates from a variety of sources. The subject is an owner-occupied property; thus, the subject's owner has not provided historical income/expense information to the PAO's office. Given the subject is relatively new and has a fairly specialized use as a newspaper production facility, I give greatest weight to the PAO's Cost Approach. The Cost Approach is frequently regarded as the best approach for special purpose properties. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a brief subject property breakdown , subject photograph, and a Cost Approach. The problem with the PET's Cost Approach is that it uses the PAO's administrative land value input as the subject's `market value' for the land. This is improper practice, as the PET should have provided market land sales data, just as the PAO did with the PAO's Cost Approach. Given the land value is a very important and significant value with a property having a site area of 14.9 'net' acres, the PET's analysis is insufficient evidence to refute the PAO's assessment. RULING: The PET only presents an improperly supported Cost Approach to value, while the PAO presents 3 approaches (with a proper Cost Approach given primary weight). 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: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00138 Parcel ID 37995840005 Petitioner name JEAN-CLAUDE BEAUPLAN Property 1480 39THSTSW The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34117 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completedRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 480,965.00 480,965.00 480,965.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 448,521.00 448,521.00 448,521.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 448,521.00 448,521.00 448,521.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (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 11/13/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 ibtk!. Ntd. 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 # 2016-00141 Parcel ID 58104440000 Petitioner name BARTOLUCCI, DENNIS D, & PAMELA Property 800 CAXAMBASDR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 716,053.00 716,053.00 716,053.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 587,107.00 587,107.00 587,107.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 587,107.00 587,107.00 587,107.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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.] ZI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/16/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 presented sufficient evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011 F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. 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 # 2016-00149 Parcel ID 01533220563 Petitioner name HUMBERTO REGO TRUST Property 4031 GULF SHOREBLVDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 659,520.00 659,520.00 659,520.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 659,520.00 659,520.00 659,520.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 659,520.00 659,520.00 659,520.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Humberto Rego Trust; however, the PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET did check the box in the petition to have their evidence considered; however, the PET did not submit any evidence into the record. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). The PAO did explain their evidence & did establish the presumption of correctness. RULING: The PAO's assessment is upheld, given there was no PET evidence. Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 Rule 16 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITIONt Florida Administrative Codee t'f \'t Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # 2016-00150 Parcel ID 73749900605 Petitioner name KAREN VICTOR Property 3175 SERENALN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 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 250,439.00 250,439.00 250,439.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 250,439.00 250,439.00 250,439.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 250,439.00 250,439.00 250,439.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/15/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/17/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of 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: The Petition concerns the lack of homestead exemption on a condominium located at 3175 Serena Lane, Naples. This Petition was accompanied by Petition 151 which appeals the lack of transfer of the homestead savings from the previous homestead to the subject property. Petitioner, Karen Victor, did not appear but had indicated in an email dated September 21, 2016, that she wished to have her evidence considered. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. The Petitioner purchased her new home at 3175 Serena Lane, #102, Naples, Florida on November 4, 2015. (P. Ex. 1, letter). The previous home was located at Novara Court, Naples, Florida. (P. Ex. 1) No application for homestead exemption for the new property was made. (Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1) Each party's evidence package was admitted. Conclusions of Law: In the absence of a homestead application and a decision by the PAO on said application, there is no action to be reviewed on this appeal. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat.,requires a person owning real property to make application for the homestead exemption, listing and describing the property for which the exemption is claimed. The failure to make application constitutes a waiver of the exemption privilege for that year. S. 196.011, Fla. Stat. The credible and relevant evidence showed that Petitioner failed to make application to the Property Appraiser in accordance with Florida law. PAO cited to the Attorney General Opinion 1001-83, in support of its position. However, this opinion is not dispositive of the question as the specific scenario posed to the Attorney General was one where the petitioner attempted to bypass the Property Appraiser and file an application directly with the Value Adjustment Board. In this case, no application accompanied the petition. Nonetheless, it is clear that Section 196.011, Fla. Stat., requires application. Section 193.155,(8), Fla. Stat., reinforces this fundamental requirement by repeatedly referring to the establishment of a new homestead before the homestead savings can be transferred. Subsection (8)(g) states that in order for a person to avail herself of the portability statute, the individual must file a form requesting the transfer "as an attachment to the application for homestead exemption." In the absence of any evidence that an application for the exemption had been made on the subject property, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof in this case, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 Rule r ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Florida Administrative16 Codee \. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00151 Parcel ID 73749900605 Petitioner name KAREN VICTOR Property 3175 SERENALN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Q 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 250,439.00 250,439.00 250,439.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 250,439.00 250,439.00 250,439.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 250,439.00 250,439.00 250,439.00 *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 Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/15/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 10/17/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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 Petition concerns the lack of transfer of the homestead assessment difference from the previous homestead to the subject property located at 3175 Serena Lane, Naples. This Petition was accompanied by Petition 150 which appeals the lack of homestead exemption on the subject property. Petitioner, Karen Victor, did not appear but had indicated in an email dated September 21, 2016, that she wished to have her evidence considered. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. The Petitioner purchased her new home at 3175 Serena Lane, #102, Naples, Florida on November 4, 2015. (P. Ex. 1, letter). The previous home was located at Novara Court, Naples, Florida. (P. Ex. 1) No application for homestead exemption for the new property was filed. (Ybaceta; PAO Ex. 1) Each party's evidence package was admitted. Conclusions of Law: In the absence of a homestead application and the establishment of a new homestead there can be no transfer of the homestead assessment difference. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. requires a person owning real property to make application for the exemption each year. While the homestead exemption may be renewed annually without new application, Section 193.155,(8), Fla. Stat., makes it clear that application must be made when the taxpayer purchases a new property upon which she intends to permanently reside. The portability statute, s. 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., repeatedly refers to the establishment of the new homestead and requires that a new homestead be established before the homestead assessment difference from the previous homestead can be transferred. Lest there be any doubt, subsection (8)(g) states that in order for a person to avail herself of the portability statute, the individual must file a form requesting the transfer "as an attachment to the application for homestead exemption." 193.155(8)(g), Fla. Stat. The credible and relevant evidence showed that Petitioner failed to make application for a homestead exemption on the new home at 3175 Serene Lane, #102. PAO cited to the Attorney General Opinion 1001-83, in support of its position. However, this opinion is not dispositive of the question as the specific scenario posed to the Attorney General was one where the petitioner attempted to bypass the Property Appraiser and file an application directly with the Value Adjustment Board. In this case, no application accompanied the petition. Nonetheless, it is clear that Section 196.011, Fla. Stat., requires application. Section 193.155,(8), Fla. Stat., reinforces this fundamental requirement. In the absence of any evidence that an application for the exemption had been made on the subject property, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof in this case, 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. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00155 Parcel ID 22501252665 Petitioner name MARIA WINKLER Property 796 ASHBURTON DR The petitioner is: WI taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ 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 p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 847,039.00 847,039.00 847,039.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 794,606.00 794,606.00 794,606.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 794,606.00 794,606.00 794,606.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/25/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in earlier in this same hearing date. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 2010, and it is located on a dry lot (with a heavily landscaped/blocked golf view) of 0.26 acres. It is located at 796 Ashburton Drive within the Audubon Country Club. The subject has an adjusted building size of 4,006 SF and an open spa/pool. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$847,039, or $211.44/SF of adjusted area. The subject last sold for $885,000 in 8/2011. According to the PET, the subject's prior sale was `turnkey furnished'. The main issue with the subject is that it is a much newer & larger home surrounded by other slightly smaller homes built in the early-to-mid 1990's. The subject's lot was passed by from development for a period of time, until finally developed with the subject home circa 2010. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, witness list of PAO officials, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/ pool photographs, subject 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 that this same home was petitioned in 2015 to the VAB. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $4,300/front foot (FF) X 60.87 FF = $261,741. The PAO considers a total of 7 land sale `residual' indicators. These residuals are derived from the improved sales used, yet with the PAO's improvement values deducted from the respective sales prices. Impact fees are inherently included in the residual indicators via this methodology. The PAO provides a location map for the sales (the same as the improved sales in this case). The PAO then adds site improvements ($5,000) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool/spa ($681,168) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$947,909. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 7 improved sales that all closed during 2015. Sale #4 is next door to the subject & it was built in '91 with a substantially smaller size of 3,161 adjusted square feet. It sold for $720,000. Sales #6 & #7 are located on the opposite side of Vanderbilt Beach Drive in an extended part of the development. Those two sales are of a more similar size to the subject (plus #7 was built in 2004), and they sold for $840,000 and $1,065,000, respectively. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$240/SF of adjusted area X 4,006 SF = $961,000. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his sales. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did not appear for this hearing. The PET did check the box on the petition for non-attendance. The PET submitted one page of evidence. The PET notes a significant (17.3%) assessment increase from 2015 for the subject. The PET notes a 6/2016 sale that is not timely for consideration at this hearing, given the assessment date is 1/1/2016. The PET notes the subject's blocked (heavily landscaped) view toward the golf course. The PET also notes the prior sale of the subject was a furnished sale, yet that prior sale was back in 2011; thus, also not timely for consideration at this hearing given the amount of time that has passed. The PET fails to provide any timely or convincing evidence from 2015 leading up to the assessment date that refutes the reasonableness of the assessment. RULING: The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. The weight and preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00156 Parcel ID 30875005365 Petitioner name THOMAS, ROBERT R. Property 1840 FLORIDA CLUBCIR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 98,128.00 98,128.00 98,128.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 76,559.00 76,559.00 76,559.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 76,559.00 76,559.00 76,559.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/22/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Robert Thomas; however, the PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET did check the box in the petition to have his evidence considered. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 1-bedroom residential condominium built in 2002. It is located at 1840 Florida Club Circle, Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 864 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $98,128. The subject last sold for $140,800 in 03/2016 (well after the assessment date). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, evidence list, screen shot of the subject's tax roll information, 3/7/20163 deed of the subject indicating a price of$140,750, subject's verification letter, an aerial photo, building sketch/floor plans, subject/comparable photographs, Sales Comparison Approach chart, aerial photo noting the location of the subject & comparable improved sales, subject complex site plan, list of Napoli luxury amenities, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The PAO indicates the subject caters to single, young professionals. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 6 improved sales that all closed during 2015. The PAO demonstrates that the $/SF indicators from all the sales exceed the subject's assessment/SF, even though many of the sales are larger than the subject. Sale #2 (as short sale) happens to have the same size as the subject and it still sold for $104,100, in support of the assessment. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his sales. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, as the sales are sufficiently compelling to demonstrate the reasonableness of the assessment. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did NOT appear for this hearing, but did check the box on the petition requesting his evidence should be considered. The PET submitted the subject's TRIM notice and also 5 closed sales that took place in 2016. Those sales are not timely for consideration at this hearing, as they all closed well after the 1/1/2016 assessment date (all in June or July 2016). The PET should be submitting information leading up to the assessment date, and in particular sales data that closed during 2015 in this particular case (as was submitted by the PAO). The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness; thus, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00157 Parcel ID 53700680007 Petitioner name THOMAS, ROBERT R. Property 3615 BOCA CIEGADR The petitioner is: WI taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part 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 81,050.00 81,050.00 81,050.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 81,050.00 81,050.00 81,050.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 81,050.00 81,050.00 81,050.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 10/25/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner & Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Robert Thomas, yet he did not attend the hearing. Mr. Thomas did check the box for non-attendance on the petition & he did submit evidence for consideration. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is residential condominium unit in `Lakewood Condo Unit III', built in 1981. It is located at 3615 Boca Ciega Drive, Unit 204. The subject is a 2/2 unit and it has an adjusted building size of 930 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$81,050. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a subject building front photo, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, screen shot related to the subject unit's tax roll information, prior 6/2015 deed for the subject [for $89,500 furnished], sale verification letter, subject's building card, aerial photograph/ location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of sales (from 2 other Lakewood Condominium buildings), and more detailed aerial map showing all 6 sales. The PAO also provides various other photographs of the subject's building, floor plans, and views from the subject's unit. The PAO only uses the Sales Comparison Approach & provides various floor plans, and site plans of the comparables. The subject's 2015 MLS listing is also provided (with numerous photos) indicating 5 days on market. The PAO also provides an aerial photo showing the subject's location in relation to the PET's comparable sales (which are miles away). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 6 improved sales that closed during 2015 from two different phases of the same condo complex. All are 2-bed units like the subject, and all have the same square feet size as the subject. The sales range from a low of$97K to a high of$115K. Given the subject's rapid time to go to contract (as indicated by 5 days on market), the data suggests the subject's assessment is reasonable for its view, regardless of some older furnishings included in the prior sales. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided the subject's TRIM notice and 6 Realtor.com closed sales from 2016. All of these sales are NOT timely for consideration, as they are after the 1/1/2016 assessment date. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY timely evidence for consideration leading up to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. 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 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 ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425,Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00168 Parcel ID 51960001583 Petitioner name FERRARO, ANTHONY Property 14865 TYBEE ISLANDDR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ 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 611,273.00 611,273.00 611,273.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 611,273.00 611,273.00 611,273.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 611,273.00 611,273.00 611,273.00 *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 0 Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference 0 Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/31/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at 0 AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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 Anthony and Carolyn Ferraro, who own residential property located at 14865 Tybee Island Dr., Naples, Florida. They seek review of a denial of a late filed homestead application. Anthony Ferraro was present at the hearing. The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. All parties were sworn. The PAO's evidence package was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1, consisting of 17 pages. Petitioner's evidence consisted of a Notice of Hearing, PAO letter of evidence exchange and a HUD statement. This evidence was admitted without objection as P. Ex. 1. Petitioner purchased the subject property on October 6, 2015 and moved to Florida that fall (P. Ex. 1; Ferraro). Petitioner owned two properties in New York at that time. (Ferraro) Petitioner applied for a homestead exemption on August 15, 2016. (PAO Ex.l, p.5) This application was late and was denied on grounds that Ferraro enjoyed a residency based tax exemption in another jurisdiction, called Basis Star. (Ybaceta) However, no letter of disapproval was presented by the PAO. Therefore the denial did not conform with s. 196.193, Fla. Stat. and is invalid. Petitioner did not obtain his Florida Driver's License and his voter's registration until August 15, 2016 because he was told by either the Tax Collector's Office or the Property Appraiser's Office at the Orange Blossom complex, that he had to have a Florida Driver's License before he could apply for a homestead exemption. (Ferraro) Employees of the PAO are instructed to accept applications even if the proof of residence is not provided. (Ybaceta) Petitioner could not apply for a driver's license until he had proof of his identity which required a certified birth record from New York. (Ferraro) Petitioner registered his motor vehicle on June 14, 2016. (PAO Ex.1, p. 12) Petitioner is receiving a residency based exemption on property he and his wife own in New York. (Ferraro; Ybaceta) The PAO denied the homestead application on this basis. Petitioner was unaware that they were receiving this exemption, but Petitioner's tax returns did show a school relief tax credit. (Ferraro) The New York home receiving the credit was sold in June of 2016. (Ferraro) The New York tax exemption could not be removed in October, 2015. (Ybaceta) Conclusions of Law: Every person who, on January 1, has the legal or beneficial title to real property and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence is entitled to an exemption for homestead. Section 196.031, Fla. Stat. Application for the homestead exemption must be made on or before March 1, or the privilege of the exemption is waived by the taxpayer. Section 196.011(1), Fla. Stat. However, if a taxpayer is otherwise qualified for the exemption and can show extenuating circumstances that warrant granting the exemption, the Value Adjustment Board may grant the late filed application. Section 196.011(8), Fla. Stat. The Special Magistrate, acting on behalf of the VAB, may recommend that the exemption be granted if a finding of extenuating circumstances is made. In the instant case, Petitioner must first show that they qualify for the exemption and then that there are extenuating circumstances that warrant excusing the late filing of the application. As a preliminary matter, the Special Magistrate must review the PAO's denial of an exemption and determine if the denial is valid under s. 196.193, Fla. Stat. This statute requires that the PAO explain its reasons for denying an exemption application with sufficient clarity so that a reasonable person can understand the specific attributes of the applicant or the applicant's use of the subject property which formed the basis for the denial. If a notice fails to meet these requirements, it is considered invalid. No Notice of Disapproval was presented by the PAO and the Special Magistrate was left with only Ms. Ybaceta's testimony as to the basis for the denial. In the absence of evidence of the specific verbiage of the denial, the Special Magistrate could not conclude that the requirements of s. 196.193, Fla. Stat., were met. Therefore the denial was determined to be invalid. If the denial is found to be invalid, the Special Magistrate cannot give weight to the exemption denial or to any evidence supporting the basis for such denial and must apply s. 194.301, Fla. Stat. Rule 12D-9.027(4), Fla. Admin. Code. This statute places the burden of proof on the Petitioner to show that the exempt status assigned to the property is incorrect, or, in other words, that Petitioner qualifies for the exemption. Although the PAO's evidence package did contain information regarding the Basis Star exemption, that specific evidence could not be given any weight by the Special Magistrate. Rather, Petitioner was free to ignore the existence of the New York tax credit. Petitioner, however, did present his own evidence through his reference to tax returns, that he had in years previously enjoyed a tax exemption in New York State. He was not aware that the school relief credit shown on the return was a residency based exemption. (Ferraro) Ybaceta was permitted to rebut this evidence with her testimony. Petitioner did demonstrate that he bought the property in October 2015 and moved to Florida at that time. His explanation for the voter's registration and driver licensure in June and August of 2016, was also sufficient to rebut any suggestion that he did not establish permanent residence until he acquired these documents. Section 196.015, Fla. Stat., provides a laundry list of factors to be considered by the PAO when determining the intent of a person to establish a permanent residence in this state for purposes of a homestead exemption. These factors, however, which include proof of voter registration and a valid Florida Driver's License, are not conclusive as to that determination. Section 196.015, Fla. Stat. Nor are they prerequisites for an application for homestead. His testimony was credible on why he waited so many months before obtaining these residency documents. The burden was on Petitioner to prove he qualified for the exemption. The credible and relevant evidence, excluding the documentation provided by PAO on the New York tax credit which was given no weight, showed that Petitioner was enjoying another residency based exemption on the New York property as of January 1, 2016. Florida law prohibits a taxpayer from receiving a homestead exemption when he or she is receiving a similar tax exemption in another state. Consequently, the evidence was not sufficient to show that Petitioner qualified for the exemption. Having found that the Petitioner is not qualified to receive a homestead exemption, it is unnecessary to determine whether extenuating circumstances exist that warrant granting the exemption. It should be noted, however, that if Petitioner could have established that the PAO staff had refused to accept his application because of the lack of a Florida Driver's license, he would have presented sufficient facts to constitute extenuating circumstances. While ignorance of the law does not excuse a late filed application, an incorrect instruction by the PAO office may, under certain circumstances. Petitioner had the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were entitled to a homestead exemption. In addition, Petitioner had to show extenuating circumstances to excuse the late filing of the homestead application. The greater weight of the credible and relevant evidence supported the status of the property as non- homestead as of January 1, 2016. Petitioner failed to meet their 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. These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00183 Parcel ID 00255091000 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 5305 AIRPORT PULLING RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 1Z taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 2,911,518.00 2,911,518.00 2,911,518..00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,911,518.00 2,911,518.00 2,911,518.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,911,518.00 2,911,518.00 2,911,518.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 1Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/07/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiau ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Toys-R-Us retail big box store built in 1996 with 30,585 adjusted square feet of building area situated upon a site of 130,680 square feet. It is located at 5305 Airport Pulling Road North, Naples, Florida. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,911,518. The subject is at a very busy intersection at the northwest corner of Airport Pulling Road and Pine Ridge Road. The subject is an outparcel of a larger shopping center anchored by a Bed, Bath, & Beyond. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted aerial photographs, various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 1996 deed for the subject, subject's building card, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable land sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, comparable improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to DOR compliance, case law, and FL statues, etc. pertaining to all 2016 hearings. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 6 land sales. Land Sales 1, 4, 5 & 6 are not excessively far from the subject & appear to offer good location comparability, yet Land Sale #3 ($24.57/SF) is the most similar in size to the subject. The PAO concludes a land value of$23.00/square foot, or $3,006,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,567,603), impact fees ($645,145), and site work ($160,046) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of $5,378,000. The assessment is well supported just with the combination of the land value + impact fees, which equate to a combined total of$3,651,145. Impact fees 'run with the land'. Overall, the PAO's Cost Approach is given very strong weight to support the fee simple assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 4 improved sales & 1 listing in Collier County. Sale #4 is actually a 4/2016 sale, and not timely for consideration (other than for possible trending). The PAO concludes $184/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$5,628,000. It appears the majority of the PAO's improved sales are leased fee sales, which makes them a little less useful for the fee simple valuation. While the PAO does provided photographs of the improved comparables, he does not provided full sale details regarding their lease situations (i.e. rental rates, term remaining, etc.), so I give less weight to this In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$16/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.7% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$5,132,000. The PAO fails to provide specific rent (or expense) comparables related to his projections, yet the PAO does provide general market and cap rate information for the Naples/Collier market in evidence. Because specific data related to the subject would be preferred (especially with regard to market rents), I give less weight to the PAO's Income Approach. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation (especially with his Cost Approach, which is fee simple). The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted Cost Approach and an Income Approach for this petition. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET presents Marshall Valuation data sheets, yet fails t point to any specific building quality. Regardless, the PET applies a base cost of$61.61/ SF (which is well below the PAO's $73.22/SF). The primary deficiency of the PET's Cost Approach is its failure to provide market support for land value. The PET only uses the PAO's administrative allocation of land value of$1.317M in the assessment, which is incorrect methodology. The PET also fails to consider the substantial impact fees ($645,145). An argument could also be made the PET (and PAO) both fail to consider entrepreneurial profit, which is also a proper component of the Cost Approach. Had the PET even considered the impact fees, his Cost Approach conclusion would have been sufficient to support the assessment. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's Cost Approach, given its deficiencies. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects a market rental estimate of$8/SF, vacancy of 7%, expenses of 10%, loaded OAR of 8.5% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$2,319,422. The PET provides rental data for properties in Pensacola, Lake Wales, and Orange Park. None of those markets are remotely comparable to the subject's market in SW Florida in Naples. PET's other inputs for his Income Approach are also unsupported; thus, I give no weight to the PET's Income Approach. While the PET does not specifically provide a Sales Comparison Approach with a conclusion, the PET does provide 3 Toys-R-Us sales of$97.31/SF in 2012 (in Jacksonville that supports the AV of$95.19/SF), another Toys-R-Us sale of$55.08/SF Jacksonville sale in 2011, and a 3rd Toys-R-Us sale of$77.37/SF in Orlando during 2012. None of these 3 sales took place near the assessment date & none are in the SW Florida market area. Therefore, I give no weight to these 3 sales as being relevant to the subject's assessment in 2016. RULING: The PET provides very weak data and what market data is provided is not from the SW Florida market. The PET's evidence is insufficient to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's assessment is strongly supported by his Cost Approach, which is fee simple and supported by the land value + impact fees alone, even before adding the contributory value of vertical improvements. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00184 Parcel ID 00177000205 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 8900 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,967,360.00 2,967,360.00 2,967,360.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,967,360.00 2,967,360.00 2,967,360.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,967,360.00 2,967,360.00 2,967,360.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/30/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 1997. It is located at 8900 Tamiami Trail North. The subject is located at the NE quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Tamiami Trail and Vanderbilt Beach Road in North Naples. The subject has 17,310 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 95,936 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,967,360. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a package of information with a table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, general information about the subject, property information, deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph/zoning map, improved sales location map, land sales map, (showing subject & comparable land sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift Valuation support, street level photographs of the subject. The PAO also provides various other photographs of the subject's building & ground floor plan. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 9 commercial land sales within Collier County. The PAO concludes a land value of$25/square foot (which appears reasonable from the data), or $2,385,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,493,088), impact fees $220,833), and site work ($120,463) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$4,219,000 (rounded). The Cost Approach for this type of relatively modern/new property is given strong consideration; given its fee simple value indication is not distorted by any lease terms that often distort sales of such properties under long-term 'net lease' arrangements. The land value + impact fees combined equate to 87.8% of the whole just value. Impact fees are vested to the site and 'run with the land', even if the improvements are destroyed. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales of either Walgreens or CVS drug stores in the Southwest Florida market area. Five (5) of them are located within Collier County, while 2 are in Lee County & one is in Sarasota. The subject is assessed at $171.42/SF of adjusted building area, yet the sales demonstrate a range from $287.56-632.43 per square foot. The PAO concludes $425/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$7,357,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to this approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed 'fee simple' and unencumbered. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,853,000. The PAO does not provide very good support for all of his inputs, particularly his 'fee simple' market rent estimate. However, the PAO does include a package of drug store market information in a separate evidence submittal in evidence. That data is largely based upon `leased fee' information for many different 'net lease' transactions of various term lengths in a variety of different market areas. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness, and especially with his Cost Approach presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. While the PET did provide a limited amount of cost-realted data, the PET did not prepare a formal Cost Approach for this petition. The PET did provide an `Income Stream Analysis' for the subject. It is based upon projected rent of$15.50/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25 reserves, and an OAR of 8.5%, resulting in a value indication of$2,562,695. Support for these inputs is either weak, or non-existent. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY market sales data of improved properties from Collier County. Most of the PET's improved sales are either untimely for consideration or out of the subject's market area. The PET fails to complete a Cost Approach. The PET's Income Approach is very weakly supported. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. In particular, the PAO provides very good support to the land value and other inputs in the Cost Approach, which is given most weight in my ruling for the subject's fee simple value. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO; thus, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00185 Parcel ID 25368000028 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 12784 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from 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 2,375,076.00 2,375,076.00 2,375,076.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,375,076.00 2,375,076.00 2,375,076.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,375,076.00 2,375,076.00 2,375,076.00 *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 10/30/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 1999. It is located at 12784 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the southwest quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Boulevard (Highway CR-951). The subject has 15,834 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 55,305.8 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,375,076. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a variety of ground level subject building photos, floor plan, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2007 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable land sales), roster of land sales, Marshall Valuation summary report, improved sales map, improved sales grid, and a supplemental package of drug store-related data. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 3 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$24.50/square foot, or $1,355,000. The concluded value seems reasonable from the land sales presented, especially since land sales 1 & 3 are extremely close to the subject. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,498,849), impact fees ($190,444), and site work to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$3,122,000 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Four are in Collier County, two in lee County, and one in Sarasota. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$6,729,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed 'fee simple' and unencumbered. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,440,000. The PAO does not provide very good support for all of his inputs, particularly his 'fee simple' market rent estimate. However, the PAO does include a package of drug store market information in a separate evidence submittal in evidence. That data is largely based upon `leased fee' information for many different 'net lease' transactions of various term lengths in a variety of different market areas. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. For this Petition, the PET did provide a Cost Approach. However, it fails to consider impact fees ($190,444 as supported by the PAO's evidence). Had the PET considered impact fees, his Cost Approach conclusion would have increased from $2,253,596 to $2,444,000 (supporting the assessment). A major problem with the PET's Cost Approach is that it fails to provide any support for the land value. It is not appropriate to use the PAO's allocated land component in the tax rolls for this type of hearing. Actual land sales from the market should be presented. Both the PET's Cost Approach and the PAO's Cost Approach could have also included entrepreneurial reward (profit), yet neither does. This component would have further increased both of their respective Cost Approaches. The PET's Cost Approach also fails to consider site work/paving, which is also relevant within a Cost Approach. The PET did provide an `Income Stream Analysis' for the subject. It is based upon projected rent of$15.00/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25 reserves, and an OAR of 8.5%, resulting in a value indication of$2,267,056. Support for these inputs is either weak, or non-existent. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY market sales data of improved properties from Collier County. Most of the PET's improved sales are either untimely for consideration or out of the subject's market area. If it had been prepared correctly to recognize impact fees, entrepreneurial profit, and a market-supported, land value estimate, the PET's Cost Approach actually would have supported the assessment, not refuted it. The PET's Income Approach is very weakly supported. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. In particular, the PAO provides very good support to the land value and other inputs in the Cost Approach, which is given most weight in my ruling for the subject's fee simple value. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO; thus, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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# 2016-00186 Parcel ID 81065000022 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 1565 AIRPORT PULLING RDS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 0 other, explain: Decision Summary Z1 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 2,245,369.00 2,245,369.00 2,245,369.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,245,369.00 2,245,369.00 2,245,369.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,245,369.00 2,245,369.00 2,245,369.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/30/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing. He did indicate via email that he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 1999. It is located at 1565 Airport Pulling Road South, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the northwest quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Airport Pulling Road South and Davis Boulevard. The subject has 15,930 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 86,248.8 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $2,245,369. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos of the subject building, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2013 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable land sales), roster of improved sales, zoning map, ground floor plan, and improved sales map. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 5 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$22.00/square foot, or $1,897,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,507,252), impact fees ($191,599), and site work ($94,107) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$3,690,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $6,770,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and 'fee simple'. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,466,000. The PAO does not provide very good support for all of his inputs, particularly his 'fee simple' market rent estimate. However, the PAO does include a package of drug store market information in a separate evidence submittal in evidence. That data is largely based upon `leased fee' information for many different 'net lease' transactions of various term lengths in a variety of different market areas. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. Even though the PET did provide a limited amount of cost and rental information, the PET does NOT present a Cost Approach or an Income Approach for this petition. Thus, the only valuation support rests upon the PET's improved sales presented. RULING: The PET only presents the Sales Comparison Approach to value. It only has 5 improved sales within the State of Florida, and only 2 of those were in SW Florida market (in Fort Myers) that closed prior to the assessment date. One of those two was a `dark' property. Generally speaking, most For Myers data tends to be inferior to the Naples market; thus, the sales presented by the PET are insufficient to be convincing enough to refute the PAO's assessment. 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00187 Parcel ID 56930880001 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 1100 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 7 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 2,499,269.00 2,499,269.00 2,499,269.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,443,015.00 2,443,015.00 2,443,015.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,443,015.00 2,443,015.00 2,443,015.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.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 10/30/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing. He did indicate via email that he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 2000. It is located at 1100 North Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida. The subject is located at the northeast quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of North Collier Boulevard and East Elkcam Circle. The subject has 15,861 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 75,089.25 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,499,269. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level subject building photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2012 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 4 land sales on Marco Island. The PAO concludes a land value of$40.00/square foot, or $3,004,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,448,071), impact fees ($180,035), and site work ($65,867) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of $4,698,000. The land value + impact fees equates to $3,183,605. The total assessment equates to 78.5% of that total. It is noted that impact fees 'run with the land'; thus, they are actually an add-on component to the land value. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $6,741,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and 'fee simple'. The PAO does have a separate data package in evidence related to drug store petitions and related data. A great deal of that information relates to 'net lease' properties under long-term leases. Those situations are not fee simple. Assessments are to be made on a fee simple basis. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,447,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. For this Petition, the PET did provide a Sales Comparison Approach and an Income Approach. In his Sales Comparison Approach, the PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. Even though the PET did provide a limited amount of cost and rental information, the PET does NOT present a Cost Approach. The PET did provide an `Income Stream Analysis' for the subject. It is based upon projected rent of$15.00/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25 reserves, and an OAR of 8.5%, resulting in a value indication of$2,270,922. Support for these inputs is either weak, or non-existent. RULING: For this type of property, the Cost Approach is often very important, given the land component tends to be high at prime intersections. This is especially true on Marco Island, where very limited commercial land exists. The PAO does a much better job of addressing the subject's fee simple value (and land value, which by itself supports the total assessment). 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00188 Parcel ID 00236320004 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 7985 AIRPORT PULLING RDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 1Z1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board 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 2,324,618.00 2,324,618.00 2,324,618.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,324,618.00 2,324,618.00 2,324,618.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,324,618.00 2,324,618.00 2,324,618.00 *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 (See Attached) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/30/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing. He did indicate via email that he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 2000. It is located at 7985 Airport Pulling Road North, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the southwest quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Airport Pulling Road North and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The subject has 25,264 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 84,506 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $2,324,618. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2013 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 6 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$23.00/square foot, or $1,944,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,467,139), impact fees ($194,731), and site work ($111,031) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$3,717,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $6,487,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and 'fee simple'. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,280,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. Even though the PET did provide a limited amount of cost and rental information, the PET does NOT present a Cost Approach or an Income Approach for this petition. Thus, the only valuation support rests upon the PET's improved sales presented. RULING: The PET only presents the Sales Comparison Approach to value. It only has 5 improved sales within the State of Florida, and only 2 of those were in SW Florida market (in Fort Myers) that closed prior to the assessment date. One of those two was a `dark' property. Generally speaking, most For Myers data tends to be inferior to the Naples market; thus, the sales presented by the PET are insufficient to be convincing enough to refute the PAO's assessment. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The PAO's Cost Approach is given primary weight, as it best reflects the subject's fee simple value. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00189 Parcel ID 00154560807 • Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 13520 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,028,272.00 2,028,272.00 2,028,272.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,028,272.00 2,028,272.00 2,028,272.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,028,272.00 2,028,272.00 2,028,272.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.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 10/30/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Stevens, yet he did not attend the hearing. He did indicate via email that he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 2001. It is located at 13520 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the southeast quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Tamiami Trail North and Wiggins Pass Road. The subject has 15,349 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 68,389 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $2,028,272. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2001 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, zoning map, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to the subject's drug store property type used in all CVS & Walgreens petitions in the 2016 tax cycle. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 8 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$25.00/square foot, or $1,710,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,385,831), impact fees ($195,815), and site work to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$3,348,000. The sum of the land value + impact fees (which run with the land) total $1,905,540, which is almost as much as the total assessment being contested of$2,028,272. This is important, given the subject is assessed fee simple, and the land value is also valued fee simple. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $6,523,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and 'fee simple'. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,304,000. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: Apparently, the PET submitted evidence for the wrong property for this hearing. The PET submitted information for Naples Memorial Gardens, which is NOT the subject. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY relevant evidence for consideration pertaining to the subject, given the wrong property evidence was submitted. Therefore, 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 tk: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 # 2016-00190 Parcel ID 64370000022 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 4290 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition El Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completedRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 1,825,574.00 1,825,574.00 1,825,574.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,825,574.00 1,825,574.00 1,825,574.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,825,574.00 1,825,574.00 1,825,574.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/30/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing. He did indicate via email that he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 2001. It is located at 4290 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the southeast quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Avalon Drive. The subject has 14,720 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 115,869.6 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$1,825,574. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2001 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, zoning map, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to the subject's drug store property type used in all CVS & Walgreens petitions in the 2016 tax cycle. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 5 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$22.00/square foot, or $2,549,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,334,350), impact fees ($177,045), and site work ($115,885) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$4,176,000. The subject's total assessment is supported by the PAO's well-supported land value alone, and the impact fees add to that. Impact fees of$177,045 'run with the land'; thus, combined, they easily support and exceed the subject's contested just value of $1,825,574. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $361.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $5,314,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and 'fee simple'. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,127,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. For this Petition, the PET did provide a Sales Comparison Approach and an Income Approach. In his Sales Comparison Approach, the PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. Even though the PET did provide a limited amount of cost and rental information, the PET does NOT present a Cost Approach. The PET did provide an `Income Stream Analysis' for the subject. It is based upon projected rent of$12.00/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25 reserves, and an OAR of 8.5%, resulting in a value indication of$1,677,387. Localized data support for these inputs is either weak, or non-existent; thus, the PET's Income Approach is very weak. RULING: For this type of property, the Cost Approach is often very important, given the land component tends to be high at prime intersections along Tamiami Trail. The PAO does a much better job of addressing the subject's fee simple value at $2.549M. The subject's total assessment is supported by the PAO's well-supported land value alone, and the impact fees add to that. Impact fees of$177,045 'run with the land'; thus, combined, they easily support and exceed the subject's contested just value of $1,825,574. 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00191 Parcel ID 66263000027 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 15295 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ 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 1,904,620.00 1,904,620.00 1,904,620.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,904,620.00 1,904,620.00 1,904,620.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,904,620.00 1,904,620.00 1,904,620.00 *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 (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/30/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 2002. It is located at 15295 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the southwest quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The subject has 14,066 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 66,211.2 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$1,904,620. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2001 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, zoning map, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to the subject's drug store property type used in all CVS & Walgreens petitions in the 2016 tax cycle. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 9 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$25.00/square foot, or $1,655,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,295,188), impact fees ($169,179), and site work ($32,299) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$3,152,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $5,978,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and 'fee simple'. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$3,944,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. Even though the PET did provide a limited amount of cost and rental information, the PET does NOT present a Cost Approach or an Income Approach for this petition. Thus, the only valuation support rests upon the PET's improved sales presented. RULING: The PET only presents the Sales Comparison Approach to value. It only has 5 improved sales within the State of Florida, and only 2 of those were in SW Florida market (in Fort Myers) that closed prior to the assessment date. One of those two was a `dark' property. Generally speaking, most For Myers data tends to be inferior to the Naples market; thus, the sales presented by the PET are insufficient to be convincing enough to refute the PAO's assessment. 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00192 Parcel ID 11280040002 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 2200 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ 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 p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,363,118.00 3,363,118.00 3,363,118.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,363,118.00 3,363,118.00 3,363,118.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,363,118.00 3,363,118.00 3,363,118.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/01/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 2009. It is located at 2200 9th Street North , Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the northeast quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of 9th Street North (Tamiami Trial) and 22nd Avenue North. The subject has 16,414 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 92,922 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$3,363,118. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2001 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, zoning map, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to the subject's drug store property type used in all CVS & Walgreens petitions in the 2016 tax cycle. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 6 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$26.00/square foot, or $2,416,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,649,615), impact fees ($186,312), and site work ($113,740) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$4,366,000. The Cost Approach is given strong weight, given it is based upon fee simple land sales from the subject's Naples area market. Furthermore, the improvements are relatively new & do not suffer significant physical depreciation. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $361.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $5,925,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and `fee simple'. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,602,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. For this Petition, the PET did provide a Sales Comparison Approach and an Income Approach. In his Sales Comparison Approach, the PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photo) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 `Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. Even though the PET did provide a limited amount of cost and rental information, the PET does NOT present a Cost Approach. The PET did provide an `Income Stream Analysis' for the subject. It is based upon projected rent of$17.50/SF, 8% vacancy, 10% expenses, $0.25 reserves, and an OAR of 8.5%, resulting in a value indication of$2,749,828. Support for these inputs is either weak, or non-existent. RULING: For this type of property, the Cost Approach is often very important, given the land component tends to be high at prime intersections. The PAO does a much better job of addressing the subject's fee simple value, particularly with the Cost Approach. 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00193 Parcel ID 24825000041 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 12955 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q 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 1,970,958.00 1,970,958.00 1,970,958.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,970,958.00 1,970,958.00 1,970,958.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,970,958.00 1,970,958.00 1,970,958.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/01/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/aximi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Walgreens retail/drug store built in 2002. It is located at 12955 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and I lth Avenue SW. The subject has 14,478 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 60,694 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$1,970,958. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2009 deed for the subject, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, zoning map, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to the subject's drug store property type used in all CVS & Walgreens petitions in the 2016 tax cycle. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 9 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$23.00/square foot, or $1,396,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,419,148), impact fees ($174,135), and site work to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$3,090,000. The Cost Approach is given strong weight, given it is based upon fee simple land sales from the subject's Naples area market. Furthermore, the improvements are relatively modern & do not suffer significant physical depreciation. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Sale #2 is the subject's prior (leased fee) sale in 2012 for $504.21/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$6,153,000. One main problem with the PAO's improved sales is that they all reflect `leased fee' (not fee simple) sales of properties under long-term 'net' leases that often tend to be written at above-market rental rates. Therefore, far less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach because of this condition. Florida law dictates that properties be assessed unencumbered and 'fee simple'. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,059,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted a roster of `Walgreens Sales Across Florida' (5 in various non-Collier counties), plus 3 sales in Arizona. Four of the 5 Florida properties were apparently `dark' properties, indicating typically that Walgreens had vacated. Two of those 5 FL properties closed after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not timely for consideration at this hearing. One of the PET's AZ sales closed in 5/2012, which is also not very timely for consideration to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. The PET also provided limited sales information (and photos) of each of those 8 sales; however, I give no particular weight or relevance of this sales info provided by the PET. The PET also provided Marshall Valuation Cost information (calculator method sheets) for drug stores, multipliers from Marshall, depreciation chart from Marshall, a grid of 6 Walgreens Rents Across Florida' (none were closed in Collier County), and information sheets related to those Walgreens rents. Even though the PET did provide a limited amount of cost and rental information, the PET does NOT present a Cost Approach or an Income Approach for this petition. Thus, the only valuation support rests upon the PET's (questionable and mostly irrelevant) improved sales presented. RULING: The PET only presents the Sales Comparison Approach to value. It only has 5 improved sales within the State of Florida, and only 2 of those were in SW Florida market (in Fort Myers) that closed prior to the assessment date. One of those two was a `dark' property. Generally speaking, most For Myers data tends to be inferior to the Naples market; thus, the sales presented by the PET are insufficient to be convincing enough to refute the PAO's assessment. 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 :• `'ltd 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 # 2016-00194 Parcel ID 00145080008 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 1100 SUN CENTURY RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I 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 1,471,891.00 1,471,891.00 1,471,891.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,216,881.00 1,216,881.00 1,216,881.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,216,881.00 1,216,881.00 1,216,881.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Z] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/07/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a building supply metal warehouse property (Bradco Supply) built in 1985 & 1988. It is located at 1100 Sun Century Road, Naples, Florida. The subject has 37,500 adjusted square feet of building area (2 buildings) situated upon a site of 113,692 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$1,471,891 ($39.25/SF of adjusted building area). The subject is zoned "I" (industrial district). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photo, zoning (aerial) photo/map, various ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 1988 deed for the subject, subject's building card, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to DOR compliance, case law, and FL statues, etc. pertaining to all 2016 hearings. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 6 land sales. Land Sales #1-#3 are `residuals', while #4-6 are actual land transactions. All of the land comparables presented are in the subject's immediate market area, while #5 and #6 are very similar in site size to the subject. The PAO concludes a land value of$7.75/square foot, or $881,000, which appears reasonable from #4-#6. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($584,756), impact fees ($163,869), to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$1,630,000. The PAO forgot to add for site work/paving, and also could have added entrepreneurial profit. Regardless, the PAO's Cost Approach is supportive of his just value. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 3 improved sales from 2015 with generally similar FAR's (floor-to-area ratios) in the subject's immediate market area. All 3 sales are significantly smaller than the subject in terms of building size. The sales range from $72.22-$141.14/SF of building area. The PAO concludes $72/ square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$2,700,000. The subject's just value is actually much less at $39.25/SF, which appears reasonable, given the subject's building size is much larger than the comparable sales presented. Another reason for a slightly lower $/SF conclusion is because the subject is made of metal construction; whereas, the comparable sales are of(superior) masonry construction. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$6/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 30%, loaded OAR of 7.9% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$1,894,000. The PAO fails to provide specific rent (or expense) comparables related to his projections, yet the PAO does provide general market and cap rate information for the Naples/Collier market in evidence. Because specific data related to the subject would be preferred (especially with regard to market rents), I give less weight to the PAO's Income Approach. That being said, the PAO's projection of rent at $6/SF does not appear aggressive or unreasonable. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted Cost Approach and an Income Approach for this petition. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET presents Marshall Valuation data sheets, yet fails to point to any specific building quality. Regardless, the PET applies a weighted average total base cost (after adjustments) of$26.80/SF (which is well below the PAO's $38.63/ SF). The primary deficiency of the PET's Cost Approach is its failure to provide market support for land value. The PET only uses the PAO's administrative allocation of land value of$717,926 ($6.31/SF) in the assessment, which is incorrect methodology. The PET also fails to consider the substantial impact fees ($163,869). An argument could also be made the PET (and PAO) both fail to consider entrepreneurial profit, which is also a proper component of the Cost Approach. Because the PET's Cost Approach has a variety of deficiencies, I give very little weight to the PET's Cost Approach combined cost conclusion (on two different sheets) of$1,157,474. Had the PET a.) used market- oriented land value support, b.) included impact fees of$163,869, c.) included entrepreneurial profit, then it appears probably the PET would have also concluded a number more supportive of the PAO's just value assessment of$1,471,891. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects a market rental estimate of$3.50/SF, vacancy of 8%, expenses of 10%, loaded OAR of 8.5% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$545,176.47. The SIGNIFICANT ERROR of the PET's Income Approach is that he bases it on only one of the subject's two buildings. He gives credit for the building of 17,500 SF, yet totally fails to account for the other 20,000 SF. The PET's has zero support for the low rental rate projected of$3.50/SF. Because of serious flaws and deficiencies, I give no weight to the PET's Income Approach. RULING: The PET only presents two weak and deficient approaches to value. The PAO's presentation has some degree of weakness, yet the PAO's Cost Approach appears fairly well supported with localized land sales data and the inclusion of impact fees. The PAO's Sales Comparison Approach appears reasonable from the sales provided, given the subject's assessment/SF is $39.25/SF, while the sales from the same market area range from $72-$141/SF. 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 y'Count Collier DEPARTMENT 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 # 2016-00195 Parcel ID 31240000020 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 12260 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 405,000.00 351,000.00 351,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 405,000.00 351,000.00 351,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 405,000.00 351,000.00 351,000.00 *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) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/10/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Stevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is commercial condominium within the Equestrian Professional Center, which was built in 2004. It is located at 12260 Tamiami Trail East Unit 101, Naples, Florida. The subject has 2,700 adjusted square feet of building area. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$351,000. The subject's 2015 was actually more at $405,000; thus, there was a $54,000 reduction in this subject's just value from 2015 to 2016. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photograph of the subject, aerial photo of subject & comparable sales, various ground level photos of the subject, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2012 deed for the subject (indicating a $600,000 sales price), subject's building card, condo permit history, site plan for the subject's center, floor plan of the subject's unit, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO does a good job of providing information related to each of his improved sales (site plans, aerials, ground floor plans, etc.). A number of listings are also provided, along with Loopnet office & retail market trends. The PAO indicates that there are many office and retail uses in this area & that many of the offices are medical occupants. In the PAO's Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$16/SF (gross), vacancy of 5%, expenses of 30%, loaded OAR of 8.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$350,341. The rental support provided by the PAO easily supports the projected gross rent, given the subject is ground floor space that is easily accessible. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 11 improved commercial condominium sales in the East Naples market area. While sometimes rented, the majority of the purchase motivation factors for this type of property is for buyer/owner occupancy as a place to conduct business. This is because the building size and dollar magnitude of purchase is well within the realm of affordability for many small businesses and professional practices. The PAO concludes $130/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$351,000. The PAO's 11 sales are distributed among 5 different professional parks of similar (modern) vintage shown on an aerial map provided in evidence. Coconut Place Commercial Center is next door to the subject and the first 3 sales presented by the PAO come from this development (also built in 2004 like the subject). The first two of the sales in that center sold in `shell' condition for $134 and $126/SF, respectively. Radio Square Commercial Center and Clock Tower Business Park are combination retail/ warehouse centers, and they still command prices that range from $123-$138/SF, even with unfinished storage areas. The subject is 100% finished and air conditioned. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted Cost Approach, Comparable Sales Approach, and an Income Approach for this petition. In the PET's Comparable Sales Approach, the PET presents 9 improved 2015 sales in evidence; however, all are located in Lee County. The PET fails to present any sales from Collier County, even though an ample supply were available (as proven by the PAO's data). The PET does not conclude any specific value or chart from the sales,just sales sheets without any comments or adjustments. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET's Lee County sales provided. In the PET's Cost Approach, the PET presents in evidence various Marshall Valuation pages of benchmark structures, calculator method figures for different office quality levels and construction types, refinements, multipliers, and a depreciation chart. The PET fails to account for any land value attributed to the subject. However, this is incorrect methodology, given a portion of the land value (a common element) does add to the subject's value. While most appraisers (or tax reps) would not necessarily prepare a Cost Approach for an office condo unit, it still can be done but the land value must be appropriately attributed to the subject's share of the `whole' site. The PET's Cost Approach also fails to account for site work, entrepreneurial profit, and impact fees. Therefore, the PET's total Cost Approach estimate of$335,805 is deficient and not given any weight because it is incomplete for failure to account for all the appropriate factors of production. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects a market rental estimate of$13.50/SF, vacancy of 8%, expenses of 10%, loaded OAR of 8% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$368,820, which actually is supportive of the PAO's (reduced) assessment to $351,000. The PET uses 7 Naples rent comparables from the Naples market. However, it should be noted that many of those are on upper floors, which typically rent for less than ground floor spaces that are more accessible. Also, medical ground floor spaces also tend to be higher than the $13.50/SF rent projected by the PET. Based upon a review of the PET's rents and overall Income Approach presentation, it is basically supportive of the assessment, yet the projected rents are likely understated to some degree. That being said, the PET's Income Approach conclusion is still higher than the PAO's. Regardless, this type of property is more often than not purchased for the buyer's occupancy, not for cash flow or income potential. RULING: The PAO presents a strong Sales Comparison Approach using only Collier County sales, while the PET only uses Lee County Sales. Both the PAO and PET provide Income Approaches in support of the assessment, and the PET's Income Approach is even slightly higher than the PAO's. From all the data presented, I give greatest weight to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach based upon localized data within Collier County (and many sales in close proximity to the subject). Generally speaking, most of the PET's Fort Myers data tends to be inferior to the Naples market; thus, the sales presented by the PET are insufficient to be convincing enough to refute the PAO's assessment. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & the assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. FLORtDA 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 # 2016-00196 Parcel ID 60204200442 Petitioner name MICHAEL SLEVENS Property 7485 VANDERBILT BEACHRD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EJ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,058,932.00 1,058,932.00 1,058,932.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,058,932.00 1,058,932.00 1,058,932.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,058,932.00 1,058,932.00 1,058,932.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/15/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiql ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Michael Slevens, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a building supply warehouse built in 2006. It is known as "Mission Hills Dentistry" (formerly Regions Bank) located at 7485 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida. The subject does have its former bank drive-thru canopy, given a bank was its former user. The subject has 3,981 adjusted square feet of building area situated upon a site of 43,560 square feet [1.00 acre]. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $1,058,932. The subject is in the vicinity of the NW quadrant of Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road (well east of I-75). The subject is considered an outparcel to the Mission Hills Shopping Center, which is on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (opposite a drainage canal). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 10/2012 deed for the subject ($965K purchase price), subject's building card/sketch, aerial photograph, zoning/aerial map, ground level photographs, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, impact fee calculations, improved sales map/ photos, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to DOR compliance, case law, and FL statues, etc. pertaining to all 2016 hearings. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 9 land value indicators (some are land sales and some are `residuals'). The PAO concludes a land value of$15.50/square foot, or $675,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($846,600), impact fees ($122,648), and site work ($57,475) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$1,702,000. The PAO uses the Marshall base costs from a bank building, not the value from a medical office building. However, there is not a great deal of difference; thus, it is not really a significant issue because both are reasonably expensive office building types. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 5 improved office sales in the Southwest Florida market area that range in $/SF indicators from $263 - $571. The PAO concludes $352.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$1,401,000. This value appears reasonable from the data presented, given Sale #2 is the most similar in terms of FAR (floor-to-area ratio) and location along Collier Boulevard, which is why the PAO gives it greatest weight. From the PAO's pictures of sales provided, the sales do look sufficiently similar to the subject. Sale #4 is a Branch Bank, which also gives it similar design features as the subject. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$45.00/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.700% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$1,879,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted an Income Approach, rental comparables, & 8 comparable sales for this petition. The PET did submit Marshall Valuation cost information; however, the PET never provides any formal Cost Approach analysis and also did not provide any land sales information in evidence. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects a market rental estimate of$19/SF, vacancy of 8%, expenses of 10%, loaded OAR of 8% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$770,423.03. The PET Provides 7 rent comparable sheets. Two of the 7 relate to upper floor rental space (often cheaper than 1st floor space), while Rent Comparable #5 has a mix of ground & upper floor rents. Rents #6 & #7 appear to be ground floor (mostly) retail spaces in multi-tenant strip centers. The subject is a single- user (all ground floor) professional/medical office building. The vast majority of the PET's rent comps are of inferior comparability and mostly `standard' office (or retail) spaces. The PET's evidence does not provide any support for cap rates, vacancy rates, or expenses. Mainly because most of the PET's projected rent comps are not professional/ medical 1st floor spaces of similar sizes in a freestanding building, the PET's approach is weak. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET provides 8 sales, yet all were from [generally inferior] Lee County. None of the sales were from Collier County, which undermines the credibility of the PET's entire approach. Therefore, I give no credibility to the PET's Sales Comparison Approach. RULING: The PET presents a weak Income Approach and a Sales Comparison Approach with zero sales from Collier County. Generally speaking, most Fort Myers data tends to be inferior to the Naples market; thus, the sales presented by the PET are insufficient to be convincing enough to refute the PAO's assessment. The PAO does provide a good Cost Approach, Sales Comparable Approach consisting of sales from Collier County of similar comparability, and an adequate Income Approach. A very large portion (75.3%) of the total assessment is supported by the PAO's land value + impact fees alone, or $797,828. The improvements are only 10 years old & appear to be in good condition; thus, likely add a substantial amount to the total value. The subject's owner apparently spent significant funds to convert the former bank into a dental office, after acquiring the subject in late 2012 for $956,000. Therefore, the PAO's assessment of the subject ($1,058,932) appears to be well supported by the PAO's evidence. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO's assessment, which is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00198 Parcel ID 16001520007 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 304 NEAPOLITANWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record rij 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 by property appraiser Action p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 5,184,069.00 5,184,069.00 5,184,069.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,234,119.00 3,234,119.00 3,234,119.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,184,119.00 3,184,119.00 3,184,119.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/08/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00199 Parcel ID 27383240007 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 500 WYNDEMERE WAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34105 ❑ 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 330,945.00 330,945.00 330,945.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 250,089.00 250,089.00 250,089.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 200,089.00 200,089.00 200,089.00 *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 ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/08/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiao ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an aciton in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00217 Parcel ID 41932560004 Petitioner name SIMON, NEIL& NICOLE Property 6170 STANDING OAKS LN The petitioner is: IZ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition WI 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 1,599,710.00 1,262,609.00 1,075,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,550,607.00 1,213,506.00 1,025,897.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,500,607.00 1,163,506.00 975,897.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.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 11/18/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 analysis which out-weighed evidence of PAO office. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of $1,075,000 [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 # 2016-00223 Parcel ID 07630040006 Petitioner name GARY A. APPEL, ESQ. Property 1000 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary II 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 226,200.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 223,938.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 223,938.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/22/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00224 Parcel ID 07630080008 Petitioner name GARY A. APPEL, ESQ. Property 1000 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1211 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 226,200.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 223,938.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 223,938.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/22/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/22/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. p LOR/DA 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 # 2016-00225 Parcel ID 07630160009 Petitioner name GARY A. APPEL, ESQ. Property 1000 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ 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 p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 226,200.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 223,938.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 223,938.00 203,580.00 203,580.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/22/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/22/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00247 Parcel ID 61942360009 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 5296 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q 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 2,066,317.00 2,066,317.00 2,066,317.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,066,317.00 2,066,317.00 2,066,317.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,066,317.00 2,066,317.00 2,066,317.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Ms. Deneen Maly. Ms. Maly did attend the hearing but did not timely submit any evidence into the record for consideration. All parties to the hearing were sworn in on this hearing date. The PET did not have any verbal arguments to contest or refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. There was no need for the PAO to submit evidence, given the PET failed to do so. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have evidence to submit at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00248 Parcel ID 00196760005 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 5412 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 0 other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,209,587.00 2,209,587.00 2,209,587.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,201,462.00 2,201,462.00 2,201,462.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,201,462.00 2,201,462.00 2,201,462.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axivi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Ms. Deneen Maly. Ms. Maly did attend the hearing but did not timely submit any evidence into the record for consideration. All parties to the hearing were sworn in on this hearing date. The PET did not have any verbal arguments to contest or refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. Even there was no need for the PAO to submit evidence (given the PET failed to do so), the PAO did submit evidence in advance of the hearing. However, there is no need to review it. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have evidence to submit at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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. IZThese actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00249 Parcel ID 00406600606 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 7380 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary II 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 2,972,415.00 2,972,415.00 2,972,415.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,972,415.00 2,972,415.00 2,972,415.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,972,415.00 2,972,415.00 2,972,415.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/28/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiql ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Ms. Deneen Maly, who did attend the hearing and did submit evidence for consideration at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding CVS retail/drug store built in 2010. It is located at 7380 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the southwest quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The subject has 13,007 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 203,213 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,972,415. The total assessment equates to $14.63/SF of land area, or $228.52/SF of adjusted building area. It is important to note that with the FAR (floor-to-area ratio) of 6.4% and review of the aerial photograph, the subject has excess land available for an additional building adjacent (west of) the existing CVS store. The PAO considers 93,600 SF of the site area to be excess land, which is slightly less than half of the total site area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, subject building front photo, prior 2004 deed for the subject, subject's building sketch & building card, aerial zoning map, comparable sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall Valuation support, roster of improved sales, & impact fee calculations. The PAO also provides various other photographs of the subject's building. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO provides the subject's prior warranty deed from its $2,463,100 in September 2004. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 5 land sales that all closed during 2015. The subject site is substantially larger than any of the PAO's land sales provided; however, the subject is essentially two sites in one, given there is excess land. The PAO concludes a land value of$22.00/square foot, or $1,655,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,413,333), impact fees ($156,442), and site work to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of $6,040,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach building conclusion of$5,527,975, plus excess land value of$2,059,200. This results in a total Sales Comparison Approach value of$7,587,000. Most (if not all) of the PAO's improved sales were leased fee sales, while the excess land is valued on a fee simple basis, as demonstrated in the Cost Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$3,646,928. The PAO then adds the excess land value of$2,059,200, for a total fee simple Income Approach conclusion of$5,706,000. As was noted in the hearing, the PAO has submitted a separate data package relating to drug store petitions taking place during the 2016 tax cycle. It provides a variety of lease rate, cap rate, vacancy rate, and other information for this property type. The PAO also presents an alternate `leased fee' Income Approach, apparently based upon the subject's actual income. This results in a lease fee building value of$5.324M, plus the excess land (valued fee simple) of the same $2,059,200, for a total of$7.383M (leased fee). By law however, assessments are to be made on a fee simple basis, so this alternate Income Approach value is not given any weight in this ruling. As is quite common with various drug store leases nationwide, the lease rates frequently have little (if anything) to do with the specific property location. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. It is important for this property type to stress that all assessments are to be based upon fee simple values, not leased fee circumstances. Some of the data related to sales is deemed leased fee, which are not necessarily appropriate for the purposes of projecting the appropriate market rental rate for the subject. For this reason and others, often the Cost Approach is given strong consideration. This is particularly true when the land component for drug stores (or other prime corner retail locations) is considered. The Cost Approach is not influenced by lease terms, as it is cost-based (i.e. land + improvements). PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) provided the subject's tax roll screen shot from the PAO's web site, floor plan, Costar description of the subject, various photos of the subject from Costar, a pro-forma Income Approach, 4 lease comparables, a different/long roster very small retail spaces that actually signed leases during 2015. Three of the actual leases [many not freestanding stores like the subject] were larger at 7,832 SF, 7,000 SF and one at 38,500 SF, yet the rest (33) were quite small and non-comparable to the subject. The PET also provided a Costar Retail Report for Southwest Florida (year ending 2015), along with Integra Realty Resources (IRR) Viewpoint report for 2016 commercial real estate trends nationwide. Of the PET's initial 4 rent comparables, 3 of the 4 are quite small and less than 1,200 SF. Rent #2 is larger at 7,832 SF; however, it appears to be older (built in '80) and semi-industrial with a garage door that includes some non-A/C garage space. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects a market rental estimate of$14/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 7.52%, loaded OAR of 7.0% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$2,285,516. The PET then adds the excess land value of$914,460, for a total value of$3,199,976. The PET then takes a 15% COS discount, resulting in a just value indication of$2,719,979, which is slightly lower than the PAO's assessment of$2,972,415. The PET does not provide any market support for her land value component. She simply uses the PAO's allocated land portion of the assessment of$9.00, which is merely an administrative figure and not appropriate for the PET to use at this hearing. Given that the subject's land area is fairly large at 203,213 SF (i.e. 4.67 acres), the land value component for a commercial parcel at a traffic-lighted intersection can be significant. The land value should be supported by market evidence, whether it is being used as an add-on component to the Income Approach, or not. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY market-based land value support whatsoever. The vast majority of the PET's rent comparables are extremely small (and many not freestanding stores) for comparison with the subject's larger size of 13,007 SF. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The total assessment equates to $14.63/SF of land area alone, and the PAO's land sales information appears to suggest the subject's underlying land (by itself) is worth substantially more. When adding impact fees, site work, and the relatively new (and substantial) building improvements, it appears the PAO's assessment is well supported. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO & their assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00250 Parcel ID 00726725009 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 6800 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34114 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ZI 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 2,494,918.00 2,494,918.00 2,494,918.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,494,918.00 2,494,918.00 2,494,918.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,494,918.00 2,494,918.00 2,494,918.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/28/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.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. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Ms. Deneen Maly, who did attend the hearing and did submit evidence for consideration at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding CVS retail/drug store built in 2005. It is located at 6800 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the Northeast quadrant of the traffic-lighted intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East. The subject has 14,308 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 87,751.8 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,494,918, or $174.37/SF of adjusted area, or $28.43/SF of total site area. According to the PAO, a portion of the subject's frontage land area had been subject to a taking for the right-of-way, yet ample land area remains for the operation of the subject's CVS, given the FAR (floor-to-area) ratio is reasonably low at 16.3%. When viewing the aerial photo of the subject, there is a portion of the site area along the southeast side of the existing store that appears to be sufficient land area suitable for a small building. That land is buildable, per the PAO & currently covered in vegetation. It appears to be either surplus land, or very possibly excess land. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, subject building front photo, prior 2011 deed for the subject, subject's building sketch & building card, aerial zoning map, comparable sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall Valuation support, roster of improved sales, & impact fee calculations. The PAO also provides various other photographs of the subject's building. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO provides the subject's prior warranty deed from its $5,350,000 in July 2011. This was a leased fee sale, and that price is dramatically lower than the contested assessment of $2,494,918. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 3 land sales. The PAO concludes a land value of$24.50/square foot, or $2,150,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($1,525,851), impact fees ($172,090), and site work ($99,000) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$3,848,000. It is interesting to note that the PAO's underlying land value + impact fees total $2,322,090, which happens to be 93% of the total just value being contested. The impact fees 'run with the land'; thus, are considered a part of it. Thus, even without much consideration at all to any vertical building value contribution (for a modern structure built in '05), almost the whole assessment is supportable by the land value & impact fees. It is also worthy to note that the PAO's land sales #1 and #3 are extremely close to the subject, and they do provide very good support for the PAO's land value estimate of$24.50/SF. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO concludes $425.00/square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $6,081,000. Most (if not all) of the PAO's improved sales were leased fee sales, while the excess land is valued on a fee simple basis, as demonstrated in the Cost Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$25/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$4,012,000. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. It is important for this property type to stress that all assessments are to be based upon fee simple values, not leased fee circumstances. Some of the data related to sales is deemed leased fee, which are not necessarily appropriate for the purposes of projecting the appropriate market rental rate for the subject. For this reason and others, often the Cost Approach is given strong consideration. This is particularly true when the land component for drug stores (or other prime corner retail locations) is considered. The Cost Approach is not influenced by lease terms, as it is cost-based (i.e. land + improvements). PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) provided the subject's tax roll screen shot from the PAO's web site, floor plan, Costar description of the subject, various photos of the subject from Costar, a pro-forma Income Approach, 4 lease comparables, a different/long roster very small retail spaces that actually signed leases during 2015. Three of the actual leases [many not freestanding stores like the subject] were larger at 7,832 SF, 7,000 SF and one at 38,500 SF, yet the rest (33) were quite small and non-comparable to the subject. The PET also provided a Costar Retail Report for Southwest Florida (year ending 2015), along with Integra Realty Resources (IRR) Viewpoint report for 2016 commercial real estate trends nationwide. Of the PET's initial 4 rent comparables, 3 of the 4 are quite small and less than 1,200 SF. Rent #2 is larger at 7,832 SF; however, it appears to be older (built in '80) and semi-industrial with a garage door that includes some non-A/C garage space. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects a market rental estimate of$12.75/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 8.26%, loaded OAR of 7.0% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$2,194,560. The PET does not add for any excess (or surplus) land value, as she states on the record that she does not deem it to exist. The PET then takes a 15% COS discount, resulting in a just value indication of$1,865,376, which is slightly lower than the PAO's assessment of$2,494,918. RULING: Given that the subject's land area is fairly large at 2.0 acres, the land value component for a commercial parcel at a traffic-lighted intersection can be significant. Visually from the aerials provided, there does appear to be sufficient land available for a small building pad. It would appear that some value consideration should be given to this component. Even though the PAO does not make an add-on for this land in his Sales Comparison or Income Approaches to value, he didn't need to in order to support the assessment. However, it is a different story for the PET, given her only approach at $2,194,560 [before COS] falls $300,358 short of the just value. Had the PET included some extra land value component, it may have been easy to justify the total assessment of the PAO. The excess (or surplus) land should be supported by market evidence, whether it is being used as an add-on component to the Income Approach, or not. Irrespective of any land discussions, the PET's $12.75 gross rent projection for a freestanding building at the major intersection of Tamiami Trail & Collier Boulevard would appear very low. The PAO's projected rent is almost double the PET's rent projection, and the PAO's rent appears more reasonable for a very high-traffic location like this. The PET fails to provide ANY market-based land value support whatsoever. The vast majority of the PET's rent comparables are extremely small (and many not freestanding stores) for comparison with the subject's larger size of 14,308 SF. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The total assessment equates to $28.43/SF of land area alone, and the PAO's land value + impact fees total $2,322,009, which appears to suggest the subject's underlying land (by itself with impact fees that run with the land) is worth almost as much. When then adding the relatively new (and substantial) building improvements, it appears the PAO's assessment is well supported. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO's assessment, which is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. FLORtDA 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 # 2016-00252 Parcel ID 68390001722 Petitioner name PRIYAJEEV TRIKA Property 16726 PRATO WAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition 0 Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 8,031,585.00 8,031,585.00 6,000,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8,003,859.00 8,003,859.00 6,000,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,953,859.00 7,953,859.00 5,950,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law The petition was reduced at the hearing and granted in-part. 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 11/16/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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. During the course of the hearing, the Property Appraiser reduced the assessement from $8,031,585 to $6,000,000 and was granted. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 RTMENT 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 # 2016-00313 Parcel ID 61947280003 Petitioner name BURKHARD MICHAEL KLEIN TRUST Property 1383 CREECHRD The petitioner is: M taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 [' other, explain: 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 114,750.00 114,750.00 85,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 60,308.00 60,308.00 60,308.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 60,308.00 60,308.00 60,308.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 overcame the established presumption of correctness[194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$85,000 [12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. ▪ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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: Provided an acceptable professional appraisal that well supported a reduction in market value. 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 # 2016-00314 Parcel ID 65272480008 Petitioner name BURKHARD MICHAEL KLEIN TRUST Property 218 FAIRWAY CIR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ 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 493,582.00 493,582.00 493,582.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 493,582.00 493,582.00 493,582.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 493,582.00 493,582.00 493,582.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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. F L O R I D A 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 # 2016-00330 Parcel ID 72680000526 Petitioner name RAY BROWNING Property 9577 GULF SHOREDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 0 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 996,600.00 996,600.00 996,600.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 921,842.00 921,842.00 921,842.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 921,842.00 921,842.00 921,842.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 10/24/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner & Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Ray Browning. All parties were sworn in at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is residential condominium unit in 'Sea Chase A', built in 1995. It is located at 9577 Gulf Shore Drive, Unit 802. The subject has an adjusted building size of 1,340 SF. It has a Gulf of Mexico view. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$996,600. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a subject building front photo, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, screen shot related to the subject unit's tax roll information, prior 1998 deed for the subject , subject's building card, aerial photograph, subject's MLS listing for $1,194,000, roster of sales from the subject's building, and various other photographs of the subject's building and floor plans. The PAO only uses the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales that all closed during 2015 from the subject's building. Sale #1 & #2 have the same floor plan (on lower floors) and sold for $1.275M & $1.125M, respectively. PAO's sales #3 ($1.25M) and #4 ($1.55M) are both from the 6th floor and are both slightly larger at 1,582 SF. As was indicated, the subject was also listed in MLS listing for $1,194,000 on the assessment date. All of the PAO's data suggests his assessment of$996,600 is reasonable. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided a roster of 12 closed sales that all closed between April & May of 2016. Thus, the PET fails to present any timely evidence for consideration leading up to the assessment date. Furthermore, none of the PET's sales were from the subject's building. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide relevant market evidence leading up to the assessment date, yet the PET fails to do this. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY timely evidence for consideration leading up to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. 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 '11.• 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 # 2016-00331 Parcel ID 71870000829 Petitioner name RAY BROWNING Property 8930 BAY COLONYDR 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 1,772,500.00 1,772,500.00 1,772,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,772,500.00 1,772,500.00 1,772,500.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,722,500.00 1,722,500.00 1,722,500.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 10/25/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner & Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Ray Browning, agent for the owner. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is residential condominium unit in `Salerno at Bay Colony, built in 1999. It is located at 8930 Bay Colony Drive, Unit 1104. The subject has an adjusted building size of 2,900 SF. It has a Gulf of Mexico view. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$1,772,500. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a subject building front photo, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, screen shot related to the subject unit's tax roll information, priorl2/2015 deed for the subject [between related parties], subject's building card, aerial photograph/location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of sales (from the subject's building & 3 other buildings), and Bay Colony Site plan. The PAO also provides various other photographs of the subject's building, floor plans, and views from the subject's unit. The PAO only uses the Sales Comparison Approach & provides various floor plans, exterior photos, and view photos from the comparables. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 2 improved sales that closed during 2015 from the subject's building. Sale #1 & #2 are 300 SF smaller than the subject's unit and from the 10th floor with Gulf views. They both sold for $2.2M & $2.05M, respectively in support of the assessment. They are given the greatest weight, given they are from the same building and share the same `bundles of rights' most similar to the subject's situation. The PAO provides Sale #3 from Toscana with 2,800 SF that sold for $2.25M, which supports the assessment. Sale #4 (on the 7th floor with a Gulf view) is much larger in Mansion La Palma at Bay Colony & sold for 705/SF, that also is supportive of the subject's $611 per assessment/SF. The PAO's comparables #5 and #6 are on very low floors with insignificant landscape views that are less relevant than the subject's higher floor with a Gulf view. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET) provided a roster of 10 untimely closed sales that all closed between April & September of 2016. He also provides substantial back-up data related to those sales. Thus, (based upon their closing dates) the PET fails to present any timely evidence for consideration leading up to the assessment date. Furthermore, none of the PET's sales were from the subject's building. It is the responsibility of the PET to provide relevant market evidence leading up to the assessment date, yet the PET fails to do this. Many of the PET's comparable sales were from low floors, which fail to offer the type of view quality comparable to the subject's view. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY timely evidence for consideration leading up to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. 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. ,.•11 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 # 2016-00333 Parcel ID 57395480003 Petitioner name KIDD, PATRICK J Property CT The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL ❑ other, explain: ISLAND, 34145 Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from Value presented by appraiser After Board y proper Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 1,824,617.00 1,635,394.00 1,350,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,824,617.00 1,635,394.00 1,350,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,774,617.00 1,585,394.00 1,300,000.00 *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 02/13/2017 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 02/13/2017 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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: Petitioner cost analysis of 2014 cost new to build along with sufficient comparable data to support a reduction. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of $1,350,000 [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 f �� 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 # 2016-00336 Parcel ID 68975005664 Petitioner name MANDY SMALLWOOD Property 4293 BRYNWOODDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition j 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 2,765,847.00 2,765,847.00 1,640,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,129,600.00 2,129,600.00 1,640,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,129,600.00 2,129,600.00 1,640,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) EI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axili ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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. During the course of the hearing, the Property Appraiser reduced the assessement from $2,765,847 to $1,640,000 and was granted. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of $1,640,000.[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 # 2016-00339 Parcel ID 25368002589 Petitioner name WENDY BECK, ESQ. Property 12730 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part 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 9,087,069.00 9,087,069.00 9,087,069.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,087,069.00 9,087,069.00 9,087,069.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 9,087,069.00 9,087,069.00 9,087,069.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196,031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/10/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The PAO representatives were sworn in during an earlier hearing on this same hearing date. The Petitioner's agent was Ms. Wendy Beck, Esq., yet the PET did not attend the hearing. The PET did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance; however, did send an email request to have her evidence considered at this hearing. On the record, the PAO did object to the PET's non-attendance, given the PET is not present to be sworn in, and the PAO is not able to cross-examine any witness with regard to any of the PET's submitted information. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is freestanding Lowe's home improvement store built in 2010. It is located at 12730 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The subject is located at the southwest corner of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Boulevard. The subject has 124,919 adjusted square feet of building area and is situated upon a lot of 578,280 square feet (i.e. 13.28 gross acres). The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$9,087,069. The subject previously sold in June 2009 for $9,500,000, or $72.74/SF of adjusted building area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, prior 2009 deed for the subject, various ground level photos of the subject building, subject's building card, aerial photograph, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable land sales), roster of improved sales, zoning map, ground floor plan, improved sales map, and Marshall Valuation support for cost inputs. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. At the hearing, I accepted a 1-page piece of evidence from the PAO regarding the subject's estimated Collier County impact fees. The PAO had already included the same dollar amount ($1,157,265) in impact fees within his Cost Approach; thus, this was just supporting documentation to a figure already provided in evidence. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 9 land sales. Land Sales #7 & #8 are not timely for consideration at this hearing, as they closed after the assessment date, yet can be considered for trending purposes only. Land Sale #9 appears to be the most similar land sale in terms of size (522,720 SF); and it closed for $8.23/SF in January 2015. The PAO concludes a land value of$8.00/square foot, or $4,626,000. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($6,848,559), impact fees ($1,157,265), and site work ($1,401,401) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$14,033,000. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 8 improved sales & 1 current listing in the Southwest Florida market area. The PAO provided back-up CoStar information for all his sales, as well as the listing brochure for #9. Sales #1, #2, #3, and #7 all closed well after the 1/1/2016 assessment date & are not valid for consideration. The subject has a building size of 124,919 SF; whereas, the remaining 5 timely comparables worthy of consideration have sizes of 14,210, 22,908, 62,516, 44,696, and 55,000 SF. Those sales have $/SF of adjusted building area indicators of$158, $286, $80, $105, and $204, respectively. From all 9 of his improved comparables, the PAO concludes $100/square foot X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$12,492,000. Of the five timey comparables, #5 & #6 closed in 2014, and #8 [in Port Charlotte] closed in 2013. Sale #4 did close in 2015, while #9 is a current listing. Among the improved comparable data provided, #7 (a BJ's Warehouse in Cape Coral) appears to offer the highest degree of comparability. It sold for $148.07/SF, was built in 2005, and has a very similar FAR of 23%. However, it closed on 3/28/2016, well after the assessment date. It was a leased fee sale too, with 10 years remaining on its original base term. The subject is to be assessed 'at market', based upon its fee simple value. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$8/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.7% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$10,480,000. The PAO does not provide very good support for all of his inputs, particularly his `fee simple' market rent estimate. The PAO includes a `Commercial Petition Addendum" in evidence relating to various market norms & rates from a variety of sources. The PET has not provided historical income/expense information to the PAO's office for inclusion in evidence. Given the subject is relatively new, I give greatest weight to the PAO's Cost Approach. The Cost Approach is frequently regarded as a good approach when the building improvements are relatively new and suffer low amounts of depreciation. The PAO's comparable sales data was weak, and the Income Approach's rental information was also weak. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach, given the improvements are relatively new (i.e. built in 2010). PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET submitted a cover letter, property summary, aerial photo, property record card, pro-forma Income Approach, comparable rent analysis, capitalization rate analysis, chart of big box sales and listings, roster of Lowe's Sales in various parts of the US (but none in FL), representative retail articles, article on the valuation of big box retail stores, and various FL statutes, DOR information, and case law material related to the VAB process. The PET also provides two pages of rebuttal evidence that provides critical comments related to each of the PAO's three approaches. I am in general agreement with most of the PET's rebuttal comments, as they are consistent with my prior comments regarding (especially) the PAO's Sales Comparison & Income Approaches. However, it does appear the PAO's land value and Cost Approach are sufficient such that the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion appears reliable for a property that is relatively new. PET's Income Approach: The Petitioner (PET) projects the subject's rent at $6.00/SF (NNN), vacancy at 10% (considered a very high rate for this type of property), 5% expenses, 7.5% (unloaded) capitalization rate, resulting in a value indication of $8,362,102, less 10% COS for a just value indication of$7,107,787. While it is good that the PET does at least try to show rent comparables, the starting dates of those leases is mostly unknown for the 12 rent comps provided throughout Florida. Another issue is the older ages of the vast majority of the rent comparables provided. The goal is to have relatively current leases as rent comparables similar in age and general location to the subject. Collier is a desirable county and the PET's rent comparables can be argued to support the PAO's projected rent of$8.00/SF, even though the PET project's $6.00/SF. Normally, big box leases are written for a long period of time; thus, the PET's projection of a 10% vacancy rate appears excessive for a property at one of Collier County's major intersections (i.e. Tamiami Trail & Collier Boulevard). The PAO projected expenses of 15% (probably high for a NNN lease property of this type); while the PET projects expenses of 5%. The PAO uses a cap rate of 7.7%, while the PET uses a cap rate of 7.5%; thus, there is not a great deal of difference there. The PET's Income Approach appears to project more pessimistic rent and vacancy figures that result in a lower estimate of value than would appear reasonable for a property of the subject's newer age and location at a major intersection. PET's Sales Comparison Approach: The Petitioner (PET) provides a chart of 13 properties for big box sales (south of Marion County in FL), one vacant land sale in 10/2014 in Collier County, and a chart of 5 big box listings [all built between 1970-1990] in 4 different counties in FL. The PET also provides a roster of 16 Lowe's sales throughout the US (except FL) that range from March 2010 to April 2016. I give no weight to any of those 16 sales, which are all extremely low sales indicators with price indications from $14-$40/SF (before any COS consideration). The PET does not provide a Cost Approach, yet does present only one land sale from Collier County. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. While there is not necessarily anything wrong with also including some degree of data from other (comparable) counties in FL, a major weakness is the PET's failure to use much data at all from Collier County to help isolate local market conditions. Granted, sometimes the market does not provide as much data as would be desired in a given year to assist in this effort. RULING: The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO's assessment, which is upheld. While both the PET and the PAO had data deficiencies in their Sales Comparison and Income Approaches, the PAO also provides a Cost Approach for the subject, which is a relatively new property that has not suffered a great deal of physical depreciation. The PAO does use a sufficient number of land sales (of different site sizes and sale dates) to sufficiently establish a reasonable land value estimate to assist in proper value support of the assessment. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00377 Parcel ID 78534003149 Petitioner name EMMA JR, ANTHONY L LISA M Property 16733 PRATO WAY The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 D other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition E Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,354,795.00 2,354,795.00 2,142,105.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,354,795.00 2,354,795.00 2,142,105.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,354,795.00 2,304,795.00 2,092,105.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/25/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties , Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Mr. Anthony Emma, who did attend the hearing. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of the hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 2015, and it is located on a dry lot of 0.51 acres. Given this is newly completed construction, 2016 is the first year the building is going on the tax rolls. It is located at 16733 Prato Way, Naples. This home is within the Tuscany Reserve subdivision. The subject has an adjusted building size of 6,771 SF. The subject has a pool & the back yard faces a golf course close to a green. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $2,354,795. The subject last sold [as a lot] for $615,000 in 05/2014. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/view/pool photographs, location map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved/land sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, impact fee calculations, and the subject's building card information. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $5,500/front foot (FF) X 121.50 FF X 1.04 depth factor = $694,980. The PAO considers a total of 2 land sales. One is next door, while the other is two lots away. Both back up to the same golf hole. Impact fees of$28,667 are also considered by the PAO. The PAO provides a location map for the land sales. The PAO then adds site improvements ($35,000) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($1,820,924) for a total Cost Approach estimate of $2,579,571. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 3 improved sales that all closed during 2015. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$380/SF of adjusted area X 6,771 SF = $2,573,000. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his sales. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did appear for this hearing. The PET notes that the PAO's sales were all furnished models and that they at least included sports membership packages in their sales prices. The PET submitted his hearing notice, Cost Approach explanation, Talis Park invoice, and construction document payment schedule for the subject dated 9/18/2014. The PET also submitted rebuttal evidence, which really was just FL statutes from 193.011, & not property- specific information. The PET notes he specializes in completing and correcting construction defects. The subject's PUD has had a variety of these problems. During the course of testimony, the PAO made the PET an offer of$2,142,105, which was verbally accepted at the hearing by the PET. RULING: The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness with his testimony and evidence. The PAO made the PET an offer of$2,142,105, which was verbally accepted at the hearing by the PET. Therefore, I grant the subject a reduction to $2,142,105. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 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 # 2016-00388 Parcel ID 22510300401 Petitioner name DENAULT, CHRISTINE F Property 2546 AUGUSTA DR The petitioner is: 10 taxpayer of record [' taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary 12:1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [' Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,956,855.00 1,683,047.00 1,683,047.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,956,855.00 1,683,047.00 1,683,047.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,906,855.00 1,633,047.00 1,633,047.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 # 2016-00389 Parcel ID 12932160006 Petitioner name 452 PUTTER DR LLC Property 452 PUTTER POINTDR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 0 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 2,867,528.00 2,867,528.00 2,867,528.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,755,519.00 2,755,519.00 2,755,519.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,755,519.00 2,755,519.00 2,755,519.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 IS( 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 # 2016-00390 Parcel ID 66434920004 Petitioner name DAVID H &JUDY P AULL LIVING TRUST Property 715 HOLLYBRIARLN The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 D other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition E 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 1,951,520.00 1,951,520.00 1,300,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,379,876.00 1,379,876.00 1,300,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,379,876.00 1,379,876.00 1,300,000.00 *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 Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness[194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$1,300,00 [12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/13/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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: petitioner supported a reduction with a certified appraisal. 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 # 2016-00398 Parcel ID 66270040009 Petitioner name BRIAN DEPOTTER Property 5811 PELICAN BAY BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 0 other, explain: Decision Summary 1,6 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 29,993,117.00 29,993,117.00 29,993,117.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 29,993,117.00 29,993,117.00 29,993,117.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 29,993,117.00 29,993,117.00 29,993,117.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/08/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiagi 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing, did not check the box on the petition for non- attendance & did not submit any evidence for consideration. Therefore, the PAO's assessment is upheld. The PAO reps in attendance were Mr. Jeep Quinby & Ms. Jenny Blaje. They were sworn in during a prior hearing on this same hearing date, but they did not need to testify at this hearing. 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an aciton in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00400 Parcel ID 85000428445 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 2450 VANDERBILT BEAC RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record j taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34109 0 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 1,554,560.00 1,554,560.00 1,554,560.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,554,560.00 1,554,560.00 1,554,560.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,529,560.00 1,529,560.00 1,529,560.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed, Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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 orvisit' our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00401 Parcel ID 85000211102 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 11200 TAMIAMI TRL N The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z1 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 1,122,129.00 1,122,129.00 1,122,129.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,122,129.00 1,122,129.00 1,122,129.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,097,129.00 1,097,129.00 1,097,129.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axien ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00402 Parcel ID 85000206036 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 7101 RADIO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record I 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 property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.00 25(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,320,736.00 1,320,736.00 1,320,736.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,320,736.00 1,320,736.00 1,320,736.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,295,736.00 1,295,736.00 1,295,736.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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.] 171 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00403 Parcel ID 85000701968 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4860 DAVIS BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34112 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary WI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,470,749.00 2,470,749.00 2,470,749.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,470,749.00 2,470,749.00 2,470,749.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,445,749.00 2,445,749.00 2,445,749.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00404 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 1 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 2,556,698.00 2,556,698.00 2,556,698.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,556,698.00 2,556,698.00 2,556,698.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,531,698.00 2,531,698.00 2,531,698.00 *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 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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiqn ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00405 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 17I Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completedRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 1,978,592.00 1,978,592.00 1,978,592.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,978,592.00 1,978,592.00 1,978,592.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,953,592.00 1,953,592.00 1,953,592.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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.] 1111 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiaa ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00406 Parcel ID 85000653469 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4975 AVILA AVE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z] taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary gl 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 913,262.00 913,262.00 913,262.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 913,262.00 913,262.00 913,262.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 888,262.00 888,262.00 888,262.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00407 Parcel ID 85000660300 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 12975 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record II 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 TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completedRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 1,149,554.00 1,149,554.00 1,149,554.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,149,554.00 1,149,554.00 1,149,554.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,124,554.00 1,124,554.00 1,124,554.00 *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.] 1111 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00408 Parcel ID 85000509490 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 8585 COLLIER BLVD 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 963,128.00 963,128.00 963,128.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 963,128.00 963,128.00 963,128.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 938,128.00 938,128.00 938,128.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. FLORtDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT T 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 # 2016-00409 Parcel ID 85000485242 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 15265 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 71 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board 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 1,072,902.00 1,072,902.00 1,072,902.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,072,902.00 1,072,902.00 1,072,902.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,047,902.00 1,047,902.00 1,047,902.00 *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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 �A la RTMENT 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 # 2016-00410 Parcel ID 85000403619 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 5624 STRANDBLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ZI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,667,003.00 1,667,003.00 1,667,003.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,667,003.00 1,667,003.00 1,667,003.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,642,003.00 1,642,003.00 1,642,003.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00411 Parcel ID 85000067482 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 175 BARFIELDDR The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, 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 1,422,438.00 1,422,438.00 1,422,438.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,422,438.00 1,422,438.00 1,422,438.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,397,438.00 1,397,438.00 1,397,438.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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.] ICI J Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 e. 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 # 2016-00412 Parcel ID 85000067495 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4601 TAMIAMI TRL N 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 599,422.00 599,422.00 599,422.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 599,422.00 599,422.00 599,422.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 574,422.00 574,422.00 574,422.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00413 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 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,493,720.00 1,493,720.00 1,493,720.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,493,720.00 1,493,720.00 1,493,720.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,468,720.00 1,468,720.00 1,468,720.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields mil 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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00414 Parcel ID 85000508941 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 4370 THOMASSON DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 17I 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 1,104,879.00 1,104,879.00 1,104,879.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,104,879.00 1,104,879.00 1,104,879.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,079,879.00 1,079,879.00 1,079,879.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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.] ICI WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00415 Parcel ID 85000246436 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 5991 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I1 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 1,428,797.00 1,428,797.00 1,428,797.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,428,797.00 1,428,797.00 1,428,797.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,403,797.00 1,403,797.00 1,403,797.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00416 Parcel ID 85000373079 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 1089 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record yi taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, 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 1,117,994.00 1,117,994.00 1,117,994.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,117,994.00 1,117,994.00 1,117,994.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,092,994.00 1,092,994.00 1,092,994.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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.] E1 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00417 Parcel ID 85000294394 Petitioner name CAPITAL TAX SERVICES Property 12663 TAMIAMI TRL E The petitioner is: ['taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part 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 1,026,159.00 1,026,159.00 1,026,159.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,026,159.00 1,026,159.00 1,026,159.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,001,159.00 1,001,159.00 1,001,159.00 *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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PAO Evidence 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: The Florida constitution requires assessments to be made on the bases of"just value." That term is defined by the Florida Department of Revenue in Rule 12D-1.002(2) of the Florida Administrative Code: The price at which the property, if offered for sale in the open market, with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or equivalent, under the prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This definition is essentially the same as "market value" as defined by numerous professional appraisal organizations such as The Appraisal Institute. The Property Appraiser's goal is to value all tangible personal property in Collier County at just value. The CCPAO; herein known as, "Collier County Property Appraiser Office", maintains a complete TPP database of businesses in Collier County and updates this database annually by physically conducting in- person field work throughout Collier County. The CCPAO processes annually filed tangible personal property tax returns and issues a determination of value and assessment. The trended investment methodology and percent good tables applied are deemed reliable and credible for arriving at just value. The CCPAO office performs an annual market analysis to validate valuation of assets in- place, calibrate equipment categories as needed and adjust index factors when appropriate for market conditions. The CCPAO office verify approximately 10,000 existing businesses & their status and document new & also exiting businesses in Collier County. Update and maintain the TPP database of all business and their assets. Conduct site visits with local business owners and managers. Photograph and document asset additions and deletions for use when conducting valuation audits In addition, CCPAO does the following; Reported historical installed costs & acquired year. Asset economic life based on taxpayer return information. Appropriate indexing /current cost indices (PPI/CPI). Audit to assure balance against reported original costs and taxpayer estimate of value. Monitor variances and calibrate when appropriate. "Going Concern" Fair Market Value (FMV) Survey. Telephone & research inquiries. Internet research. Site Inspections & In-person interviews. Local trade level purchases reported to CCPAO via annual tax returns. Monitor general businesses listed for sale in-market. Benchmark data comparisons of TPP with other States in the Southeast region of the United States The Primary Data Source is local business owners & staff members. 2016 Tangible Tax Returns with Tax Liability. Commercial, Industrial, Retail & Other Business Entities. A great deal of information and knowledge is garnered throughout the year through telephone and research inquiries by the CCPAO's Tangible Personal Property office. Our office speaks with individual business owners, accounting firms & lease companies throughout the year engaging, discussing & discovering more about specific assets being reported, overall valuation opinions, economic life observations, condition of assets and obsolescence considerations. The CCPAO frequently meets with business owners, managers or personnel during field work activities to learn about changes or conditions involving their business. Site Inspections are routinely conducted during field work or through scheduled meetings. The market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and benchmarking conducted annually confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 Evidence Petitioner failed to overcome the established presumption of correctness. Petitioner's evidence which included; Petitioner requested that additional obsolescence to economic life factors be factored "as per" the petitioner's interpretation in order to meet the State of Florida definition of fair market value. Petitioner's representative suggested that the CCPAO's Mass Appraisal Methodology was not the correct approach in arriving at Just Value. However, the Petitioner failed to provide any analysis from any other professionally accepted Appraisal Practices. Petitioner's representative also suggested that the CCPAO's office did not look to the market when applying cost approach method and tables. The petitioner's representative failed to support this position and in-fact, failed to use professionally accepted Appraisal Practices to proof otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's representative 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 applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable Tangible Personal Property in Collier County. 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 # 2016-00419 Parcel ID 68440080004 Petitioner name 1250 PINE RIDGE LLC Property 1250 PINE RIDGERD The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 4,195,659.00 4,195,659.00 4,195,659.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,195,659.00 4,195,659.00 4,195,659.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,195,659.00 4,195,659.00 4,195,659.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact The Petitioner(PET) did not attend the hearing &did not submit any evidence. The Petitioner did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered, but there was none to consider. The PAO was not required to submit any evidence, given the PET failed to submit anything into the record. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/03/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/04/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00420 Parcel ID 13803880003 Petitioner name KYLE SHEEHAN Property 2000 9TH STN The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 5,997,979.00 5,997,979.00 5,997,979.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,997,979.00 5,997,979.00 5,997,979.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,997,979.00 5,997,979.00 5,997,979.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/08/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Kyle Sheehan, yet he did not attend the hearing but did indicate he wanted his evidence considered at this hearing by submitting an email request. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Sears department store in Coastland Mall. The subject was built in 1977, & it is located at 2000 9th Street North, Naples, Florida. This location is at the southeast corner of Tamiami Trail and Golden Gate Parkway. It is worthy to note that there is a Cheesecake Factory restaurant located on in the subject's parking lot area; however, that structure is taxed separately and it is not part of this hearing. The subject has 152,107 adjusted square feet of building area situated upon a site of 511,092 square feet. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$5,997,979. The total assessment equates to $39.43/ SF (adjusted), or $11.74/SF of land area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted an aerial photo, zoning (aerial) photo, ground level photos, table of contents for his evidence, business cards of various PAO officials, subject's lengthy legal description, impact fee calculations, subject's building card, land sales location map (showing subject & comparable sales), roster of land sales, Marshall & Swift summary, zoning map, improved sales map, and grid of improved sales. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach & the Income Approach. The PAO has a separate package of data in evidence related to DOR compliance, case law, and FL statues, etc. pertaining to all 2016 hearings. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 8 land sales all within Collier County. The PAO concludes a land value of$10.00/square foot, or $5,110,920. The two closest sales (in terms of site size) provided by the PAO both closed in 2014. Land Sale #1 was 339,768 SF that sold for $26.49/SF. Land Sale #7 was slightly larger than the subject, as #7 has 635,540 SF & sold for $36.49/SF. While the 8 sales range from $16.71 - $42.43/SF, the PAO concludes a conservative land value estimate of$10/SF. The PAO then adds the depreciated value of the improvements ($6,391,690), impact fees ($2,253,360) to the land value for a final Cost Approach value of$13,756,000. The PAO could have also added site work and entrepreneurial profit to the total. Regardless, the subject's total just value of$5,997,979 is covered by the land value + impact fees, which equates to $7,364,280. Impact fees 'run with the land'. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 9 improved properties in the Southwest Florida market area. The first five sales & listing #9 are located in Collier County. Sale #6 is in Lee County, Sale #7 is in Flagler County, and Sale #8 is in Sarasota County. The improved properties have $/SF of adjusted building area figures that range from $79.98-$286.14. The subject's assessment being contested is just $39.43/SF of adjusted building area. However, (based upon his sales), the PAO concludes $90.00/ square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$13,690,000. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$6.00/SF, vacancy of 4%, expenses of 15%, OAR of 7.7% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$9,672,000. The PAO provides a variety of market rental rate information from specific Naples properties, Market Rental Rates for Collier County & SW Florida from Costar & Valbridge Property advisors, vacancy rates, and capitalization rates (from various specific properties and different data survey sources). It is worthy to note the PAO also has a separate package of data in evidence related to commercial properties related to prevailing cap rates, rents and other relevant information on a variety property types. Some of that data compares the Naples (or Collier) data with other submarkets in SW Florida. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. Most importantly, the total assessment is easily supported by the subject's land value and (inherent) impact fees, which run with the land. The Petitioner (PET) did not attend the hearing, but did issue an email request to have PET's evidence considered. The PET requests a just value assessment of$3,410,794, or $22.47/SF of adjusted building area, or $6.67 per square foot of land area. The PET submitted a Sales Comparison Approach and an Income Approach for this petition. In the PET's Income Approach, the PET projects a market rental estimate of$4.67/SF, vacancy of 5.5%, expenses of 46.24%, loaded OAR of 10.21% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$3,530,000. The PET calls this his "straight rent" method, which he defines as "the value of the property based off a triple net rent and a market cap rate." However, (based upon the prior figures), that is not what the PET did. The PET would appear to project a triple net (NNN) rent, yet then deducts a substantial amount of expenses of 46.24%, and appears to apply a very high (perhaps rate `loaded' with the millage amount) cap rate. The PET provides 8 rent comps from Costar. Most are from (inferior) Lee County, but one is from Charlotte County. None are from Collier County. Rent Comps #1-#6 appear to be retail rents that range from $6.45-$17.20/SF. Two appear to be more industrial/heavy commercial rents (not comparable to the subject) for $3.00/SF and $8.75/SF. The PET also presented what he calls the "back into rental rate" method he defines as, "The rental rate that would be required to support the assessor's value of the property assuming market cap rates and market operating expenses." In this method, he backs into a required rental rate of$4.49/SF. The PET also provides a "back into cap rate" method, he defines as, "The cap rate that would be required to support the assessor's value of the property assuming market rental rates and market operating expenses." In this method, he backs into a required cap rate of 6.003%. Because the PET's market rents do not appear to be in Collier County and not part of shopping malls, they do not appear to be comparable to the subject. The PET presents one page of 2015 income/expense information; however, the PET was not present to explain the various items. The PET also presents an Income Approach, based upon percentage rent methodology. This is basically a subject store specific analysis based upon operations as a Sears. The problem is that it is not market-oriented, it is more tied to the Sears brand and ability to operate at the subject store. The PET presents a `5-year sales chart and graph' exhibit, which shows (apparently) this store's annual retail sales from 2011-2015. The graph demonstrates declining gross sales (and sales per SF) leading up to the assessment date (apparently for the subject store). The PET concludes a value of$1.513M from this type of method; however, (as stated) it is not based upon the market. The PET further demonstrates gross sales of$22.618M would be required to support the PAO's assessment. This equates to $149/SF of retail store space. Interestingly enough, the PET fails to demonstrate any Dollars and Cents of Shopping Center statistics that might prove to be a test of reasonableness to show what the `market' performs in terms of sales/SF. In other words,just because Sears has poor sales at this location does not automatically imply poor sales by a variety of other retail operators in the local (Collier/Naples) market. In the PET's Sales Comparison Approach, the PET presents 5 improved sales between 2013-2015. Two of the sales are in Sarasota County, while the balance of the remaining 3 are in Lee County. None of the sales are in Collier County, but they result in $/SF of adjusted building indicators of$7.99, $25.12, $9.86, $66.01, and $36.08, respectively. These are extremely low (likely very distressed) building prices that do not appear to be reasonable price expectations for a Naples property located along Tamiami Trail. The PET applies a weighted average resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $3.29M, or $21.68/SF. RULING: The PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach & the Income Approach. Neither appears to include any data from Collier County. I give no weight to the PET's evidence presentation as being meaningful or useful to address the subject's value. The PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The basic building block of H&BU relates to the land value, which the PET fails to address at all. The PAO clearly demonstrates that the subject's land value and impact fees significantly exceed the total assessment, even if no weight is given at all to the vertical improvements. This aspect of the PAO's evidence alone is sufficient to support the total assessment. The weight & preponderance of the evidence favors the PAO; thus, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. F L O R t D A 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 # 2016-00422 Parcel ID 00275080004 Petitioner name MIKE WREN Property 1225 INDUSTRIALBLVD 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 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 1,763,115.00 1,763,115.00 1,763,115.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,568,831.00 1,568,831.00 1,568,831.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,568,831.00 1,568,831.00 1,568,831.00 *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 The Petitioner(PET)did not attend the hearing &did not submit any evidence. The Petitioner did check the box on the petition to have evidence considered, but there was none to consider. The PAO was not required to submit any evidence, given the PET failed to submit anything into the record. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/03/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/04/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. \:44I � 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 # 2016-00428 Parcel ID 50940003926 Petitioner name MIDKIFF, CARL Property 1109 BLUE HILL CREEK DR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 71 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 3,045,936.00 2,520,321.00 1,950,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,664,456.00 2,520,321.00 1,950,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,614,456.00 2,470,321.00 1,900,000.00 *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 Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness[194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$1,950,000 [12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 02/13/2017 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 02/13/2017 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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: Petitioner provided good market comparable evidence to reduce 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 # 2016-00430 Parcel ID 07305002366 Petitioner name SORENSEN, PAUL R TERESA A Property 4551 GULF SHOREBLVDN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record IZ 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 property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.00 25(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 1,331,250.00 1,331,250.00 1,331,250.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,331,250.00 1,331,250.00 1,331,250.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,331,250.00 1,331,250.00 1,331,250.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 # 2016-00431 Parcel ID 68790120009 Petitioner name DANIEL D. PECK, ESQ. Property 13487 ROSEWOODLN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary j Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,136,821.00 2,136,821.00 2,136,821.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,136,821.00 2,136,821.00 2,136,821.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,136,821.00 2,136,821.00 2,136,821.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision 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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 # 2016-00432 Parcel ID 01533220987 Petitioner name BOANERGES HOLDINGS LLC Property 4031 GULF SHOREBLVDN 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 883,040.00 883,040.00 883,040.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 739,008.00 739,008.00 739,008.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 739,008.00 739,008.00 739,008.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/23/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Boanerges Holdings, LLC; however, the PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET did check the box in the petition to have their evidence considered. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a residential condominium built in 1981. It is located at 4031 Gulf Shore Blvd, Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 2,155 SF, and it is unit #13-D, which is a penthouse unit. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$883,040, or $409/SF of building area. The subject last sold for $775,000 in 09/2009. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, potential witness list of PAO staff, evidence list, screen shot of the subject's tax roll information, 11/2009 deed of the subject for $775K, an aerial photo, building sketch, subject/ comparable photographs/views, Sales Comparison Approach chart, and floor plans of the improved comparable sales. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 7 improved sales that all closed during 2015. Five of those sale comps have the same 2,155 SF as the subject, given 3 are also "D" stack units. Two are "E" stack units of the same basic plan on the East side of the building (just like the subject). The PAO notes that floor height is a significant issues, given the subject enjoys both a Gulf and bay view. However, the lower floors (such as the 3rd floor where the PAO's sales #6 & #7 are located) have more of a landscape type of view of far less significance. Those two sales sold for $429/ SF and $401/SF, respectively; whereas, the balance of sales on floors 4-10 sold between $429-$508/SF. The high end of the range is reflected by PAO's Sale #1 on the 10th floor in the same "D" stack, which is just 3 floors below the subject. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, given the most relevant comparable sales with views (i.e. #1-#5) are highly supportive of the assessment, particularly when floor height is taken into consideration. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did not appear for this hearing; however, the PET is requesting a value reduction to $720,490, which is less than the subject's prior sales price in late 2009. The PET submitted evidence of 7 other units in the subject's complex. The PET claims that the POA's comps do not take into account the many physical differences that can have an impact on their market value, such as renovations, hurricane protection, etc. The PET argues that surrounding buildings have greater market value due to newer construction proximity, and renovations"; however, the PAO does not include any sales data outside the subject's building. As rebuttal evidence to the PET's information, the PAO submits the listing and deed for PET's sale of#7-D, which is just a 50% interest being conveyed for only $725,000. Thus, the sale of$7D is not an appropriate sale for consideration at this hearing. That leaves 6 remaining sales provided by the PET. Two of those come from stack "C" (i.e. 5C & 3C), which are smaller units with 1 less bed and one less bath, and both of those are on low floors that have a significantly inferior view compared to the subject's view. That leaves sales of 3D (landscaped view, but in the same stack), 6E ($960K unadjusted), and 3E ($925K unadjusted with only a landscape view). Both use the sale of 9F for $860K ($497/SF), yet that same unit also resold in May for a higher price of$920K ($531/SF). The PET provides his own adjustment figures to the various sales provided, resulting in the PET's opinions of their adjusted prices. In summary of the PET's sales, both use the sale of 3E, 6E, and the more recent sale (of two) during 2015 of unit 9F. The PET also provides a chart showing the PAO's assessment by unit floor plan, as compared to floor height. Generally speaking, the PAO makes a floor height adjustment of$10K/floor, which appears equitably applied to floors four and higher. However, floors 2 & 3 are even lower, due to them only having a landscape view, because they are so low to the ground and tree cover. The PET does provide MLS sheets for his sales provided. The PET also submitted a copy of his hearing notice. RULING: The PET argues that the subject is not renovated, yet the PET fails to provide interior photographs to demonstrate the subject's condition and finishes as being inferior the market. The PET fails to consider the sale of 10D and the newer 9F sale, while at the same time also trying to give more weight to the lower floor sales of smaller floor plans. In other words, the PET's data appears selectively skewed to the lower end of the range. Perhaps one could conclude the PET's $725K sale of 7D for a 50% interest should be doubled, resulting in a `full' interest price of$1.45M. Given it is in the subject's same stack, that type of analysis would more than justify the subject's assessment. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. The PAO's analysis appears to be more representative and inclusive of the higher floor sales that were available for consideration. The weight of evidence favors the PAO; thus, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00433 Parcel ID 47790001068 Petitioner name REBECCA S MARTELL TRUST Property 2419 INDIAN PIPE WAY The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34105 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IZI Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,380,689.00 2,380,689.00 2,380,689.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,253,614.00 2,253,614.00 2,253,614.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,253,614.00 2,253,614.00 2,253,614.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values 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 opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 # 2016-00437 Parcel ID 24200403108 Petitioner name JEFFREY A MITCHELL Property 7391 ACORN WAY The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition E Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 545,239.00 545,239.00 500,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 545,239.00 545,239.00 500,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 495,239.00 495,239.00 450,000.00 *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 was reduced at the hearing and granted in-part. 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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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. During the course of the hearing, the Property Appraiser reduced the assessement from $545,239 to $500,000 and was granted. 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 # 2016-00438 Parcel ID 19010440007 Petitioner name NICHOLAS BACHAND Property 318 7TH STS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 171 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1-36 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2,549,116.00 1,783,036.00 1,783,036.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 453,636.00 453,636.00 453,636.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 453,636.00 453,636.00 453,636.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/25/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Mr. Nicholas Bachand, who is an employee of the ownership company. Mr. Bachand did attend the hearing. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of the hearing. NOTE: Prior to this hearing, the PAO had already lowered the subject's 2016 assessment from $2,549,116 to the contested amount of this hearing ($1,783,036). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 4-unit apartment building built in 1956, and it is located on a dry lot of 0.45 acres. It is located at 318 7th Street South in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 2,649 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$1,783,036. This equates to $445,759/unit, $673.10/SF of adjusted building area, or $90.96/SF of land. The subject last sold for $399,900 in 04/2011. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photos, building sketch, front/rear/side/photographs, location map, land sales grid, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved/land sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, improved sales grid, impact fee calculations, Code of Ordinances/Zoning pertaining to the subject's R3-12 Multi-family district, and the subject's building card information. One of the potential issues with the subject is its highest & best use (H&BU), given land values in this immediate area are very high. The existing improvements do not reflect the H&BU of the land, per the PAO's statements in evidence. Demolition, substantial renovation, and possibly even a change in use to single family are all considerations noted by the PAO. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $26,500/front foot (FF) X 96 FF X 0.84 depth factor = $2,136,960. The PAO considers a total of 8 land sales. Seven of them closed in 2015, while 1 closed in 2016 for trending purposes. Impact fees of $43,303 are also considered by the PAO; however, I noted that given the way the land was valued (essentially WITH impact fees), it would be `double dipping' to also add the fees on again. The PAO provides a location map for the land sales. The PAO then adds site improvements ($2,500) and the depreciated value of the improvements ($113,788) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,297,000 to support the subject's assessment of $1,783,036. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 6 improved sales & 1 listing (from 4/2016). Five of the 6 sales closed prior to the effective date, while one closed in late February 2016; thus, it is for trending purposes only. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$850/SF of adjusted area X 2,649 SF = $2,252,000 to support his assessment of$1,783,036. It is important to note that all of the PAO's improved comparables have the same zoning as the subject, and the majorities have older buildings. Sale #1 is almost new (built in 2015), and listing #1 is also quite new (built in 2014). The balance of comps have older structures. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his sales. Visually speaking from the photographs, the subject has an appearance more similar to the PAO's sales 4, 5, & 7. Those sold (unadjusted) for $3,500,000 $1,595,000, and $2,900,000, respectively (and all had less lot front feet than the subject). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner's employee (attorney, but not in FL) did appear for this hearing. The PET's evidence consists of a cover letter, hearing notice, subject's building card (from the PAO), copy of the VAB petition, TRIM notices [for 2013, 2014, 2015, & 2016], City of Naples Interactive map [2 versions], the subject's screen shot/assessment summary from the PAO's web site, Naples Future Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and the subject's annual revenue and expenses dated 12/31/2015, yet this is not an Income Approach. The PET does not prepare any traditional valuation approach. Even though he provides 2015 income/expense information, there is no Income Approach presented. Basically, the PET presents 17 tax sheets of nearby properties for the purpose of comparative land assessment analysis. The PET does not provide a summary chart and does not provide $/front foot or $/square foot indicators in a digestible format. It is up to the PET to summarize and organize the data. In the PAO's cross-examination of the PET's evidence, the PET notes that most of the PET's data is in the C-1 A zoning classification that is not comparable to the subject's zoning. The PAO did note some of the properties presented by the PET got their assessments lowered (such as 633 4th Avenue South), as Mr. Quniby reviewed this area and did note some were inadvertently over-assessed in their mass appraisal process. Basically, the PET fails to properly consider land use issues & zoning codes in this area. When reviewing the zoning and land use maps provided by the PET, it is quite clear the color codes of classifications changes very quickly in the immediate proximity of the subject. This is why many of the PET's comparative assessment properties have different land rates than the subject. RULING: The PET failed to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness with his testimony and evidence. The main problem with the PET's evidence had to do with the different zoning and land use classifications of the comparables used by the PET that results in different value indicators for the subject. Just because similar (often older) structures could perhaps exist upon some of the PET's assessment comps does not at all mean they have the same land use/zoning issues. Also, the PAO may in some cases be valuing sites on a FF basis, yet the PET is presenting screen shots tax roll date for those properties that only indicates each comp's acreage area. This can also create distortions. In any VAB appeal, great care and consideration is necessary by any petitioner when trying to base an appeal on `comparative assessments'. These VAB hearings are based upon contesting the entire 'just value', and NOT the PAO's administrative breakdowns of land values (or building values). Those administrative breakdowns are not appropriate comparative data sets for the purposes of contesting the subject's entire just value. This is especially true in what is presented by the PET using properties from differing zoning/ land use areas, even though they may be in close physical proximity to the subject. The preponderance and weight of evidence favored the PAO's presentation. NOTE: Prior to this hearing, the PAO had already lowered the subject's 2016 assessment from $2,549,116 to the contested amount of this hearing ($1,783,036). The PAO had also lowered some of the other properties in the area, if warranted, after the original TRIM notices were mailed. Conclusions of Law: Upheld PAO. Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00440 Parcel ID 27583200009 Petitioner name PYOTT, ALAN ROSEMARIE K Property 421 BAYSIDE AVE The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 0 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 2,081,147.00 2,081,147.00 1,750,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,675,070.00 1,675,070.00 1,675,070.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,675,070.00 1,675,070.00 1,675,070.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 overcame the established presumption of correctness [194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$1,750,000. [12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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: Petitioner provided good market comparable data to support a reduction. 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 # 2016-00451 Parcel ID 66283520008 Petitioner name COLL, J PETER NANCY K Property 6552 RIDGEWOOD DR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 11 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 2,141,908.00 2,141,908.00 1,750,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,534,845.00 1,534,845.00 1,534,845.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,534,845.00 1,534,845.00 1,534,845.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7),F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/07/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.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: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Mr. Peter Coll (owner), who did attend the hearing. Mr. Lawrence LaCroix, SRA also appeared on behalf of the owner to defend his written appraisal for $1,750,000 (in evidence). All parties were sworn in at the beginning of the hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is single family home built in 1981 (with effective age of 1990), and it is located on a dry lot of 0.49 acres. It is located at 6552 Ridgewood Drive in Pelican Bay PUD. The subject has an adjusted building size of 4,239 SF. The subject has a screen-enclosed pool. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$2,141,908. The subject last sold for $1.4M in 3/2010, then was subsequently renovated. 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 $15,000/front foot (FF) X 132.99 FF = $2,034,747. That land value estimate is based upon two improved home sales (side by side) at the end of a cul-de-sac purchased for the land value, given the buyer demolished both homes. The subject is on a street with greater traffic flow than these two sales, yet the sales are located close to the subject. Given the impact fees would have been included in those sales, it would appear redundant to also add impact fees of $25,816; however, demolition costs were not also added. Thus, those two figures tend to offset each other; thus, the PAO's inclusion of the $25,816 cost remains within reason. 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 ($514,110) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,587,173. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 7 improved sales that all closed during 2015. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$620/SF of adjusted area X 4,239 SF = $2,628,000. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his sales. The PAO shares his sales #1 & #3 as common sales with the Petitioner. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. The Petitioner (PET)/owner did appear with his appraiser (Mr. Lawrence G. LaCroix, SRA). Mr. LaCroix prepared an appraisal dated December 31, 2015 with a final value conclusion of$1,750,000. At the hearing, I did accept PET's rebuttal MLS listing evidence for the PAO's Comparable Sales #2 & #3. RULING: The subject is located on a connector street (Ridgewood Drive) within the Pelican Bay PUD. It connects Pelican Bay Boulevard (just south of the subject) with Gulf Park Drive (further north of the subject). One of the problems is that the market has only provided a limited amount of actual closed sales data along Ridgewood Drive to account for a good market-oriented discount for the increased traffic flow. PAO's improved sale #1 is located on Ridgewood Drive, but it also backs to busier traffic along Tamiami Trail (on the other side of a lake). That sale is also 917 SF smaller in adjusted size, yet has the highest front feet (169.34) of any sale cited by the PAO. On the topic of front feet (FF), it seems to be the driving force of more of a mechanical & mathematical adjustment (rather than market-oriented adjustment) feeding off differences in front feet of the lots. As Mr. LaCroix notes in his testimony, the PAO should also more appropriately consider the square feet of lot differences, given many of the lots being compared are on cul-de-sacs or irregular. The PAO's data indicates a subject lot value conclusion of$2,034,747, which is based heavily upon a FF factor from 2 side-by-side lots at the end of a cul-de-sac (without busy traffic). Those lots sold for $1,215,000 & $1,225,000 (without demolition costs considered for the former homes torn down), yet the PAO concludes a lot value for the subject (with busier traffic flow) 67% & 66% greater than those lot sales, respectively. When looking at these sales (and their respective sizes) on the aerials provided, this does not appear equitable at all. The PET estimates the subject's lot value at $1.3M, while the PAO lot estimate is $734,747 greater. That approximate figure appears to be the main difference of argument between the parties. I also give weight to the PET's Comparable #5, which is actually a listing for $1.777M for a house that is also very close to the subject and also on busy Ridgewood Drive. It is 375 SF smaller in livable area (per the PET's measurements); thus, it is reasonably comparable in size. It has a slightly smaller lot 18,900 SF compared to the subject's slightly larger 20,800 SF) and is slightly newer. Overall, the Mr. LeCroix adjusts it to a figure of$1,799,610, which is supportive of his $1.75M final reconciled value. It appears the PAO's "lot adjustment" line item in the adjustment grid appears to be confusing and also results in extremely high dollar amounts of differences that do not appear to be market-oriented. Among the PAO's 7 sales, that adjustment ranges from $438k-$904K, which is an extremely high range. That adjustment reinforces the unreasonableness in the disparity of the PAO's land value estimate, as compared to two (arguably highly comparable or maybe even superior) lots at the end of a cul-de-sac. In conclusion, I give primary weight to the testimony of Mr. LaCroix, as well as the written appraisal report he prepared with a final value estimate of$1,750,000. I consider his report reasonable, compelling, and his adjustments more in line with market expectations. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness. Based upon the verbal and written evidence presented, I recommend the subject's just value should be lowered to $1,750,000, which is consistent with the PET's appraisal. In this particular instance, I do not consider it reasonable to make any further COS (cost of sale) adjustment. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. Received On: 11/7/2016 1:25:08 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00452 FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR R. 11/12 ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 .40 ASSESSMENT Administrative Code Effective 11/12 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Collier ❑✓ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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# 2016-00452 Parcel ID 22455700768 Petitioner name FAUGHNAN, JEANNE Property 7820 VALENCIACT The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value 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 369,252.00 369,252.00 369,252.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 365,114.00 365,114.00 365,114.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 365,114.00 365,114.00 365,114.00 *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 Petitioner did not appear by the commencement of the scheduled hearing and did not check the box on the Petition to have her Petition heard without her attendance.A good cause request for postponing the hearing was not submitted and gi Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Davia Mazur Davie Mazur 11/04/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/07/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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: 11/7/2016 1:25:08 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00452 Conclusions of Law: Petitioner did not appear by the commencement of the scheduled hearing and did not check the box on the Petition to have her Petition heard without her attendance. A good cause request for postponing the hearing was not submitted and is not pending. Therefore, I am not permitted to commence or proceed with the hearing and must deny the Petition. The Petition is denied. Any right Petitioner may have to bring an action in Circuit Court is not impaired. See F.A.C. 12D-9.021(6) & (8). 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 # 2016-00459 Parcel ID 18364600002 Petitioner name TEAFORD, STEPHEN D Property 2156 TARPONRD The petitioner is: E1 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ 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 1,092,201.00 1,092,201.00 1,092,201.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 783,008.00 783,008.00 783,008.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 783,008.00 783,008.00 783,008.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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 11/13/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner 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 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 vacant and improved properties within the local market 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 DPAarMElvr 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 # 2016-00460 Parcel ID 19013000004 Petitioner name DENEEN L. MALY Property 294 9TH STS The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 1Z1 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑ 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 2,205,469.00 2,205,469.00 2,205,469.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,000,480.00 2,000,480.00 2,000,480.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,000,480.00 2,000,480.00 2,000,480.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner's agent was Ms. Deneen Maly. Ms. Maly did attend the hearing but did not timely submit any evidence into the record for consideration. All parties to the hearing were sworn in on this hearing date. The PET did not have any verbal arguments to contest or refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. Even there was no need for the PAO to submit evidence (given the PET failed to do so), the PAO did submit evidence in advance of the hearing. However, there is no need to review it. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have evidence to submit at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Received On: 11/28/2016 4:00:01 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00462 FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 \J 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 # 2016-00462 Parcel ID 81635000067 Petitioner name KAUFMAN, JOSEPH PAULA J Property 465 BALD EAGLEDR The petitioner is: 0 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 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 105,000.00 87,500.00 87,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 74,113.00 74,113.00 74,113.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 74,113.00 74,113.00 74,113.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages; as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/22/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Received On: 11/2812016 4:00:01 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00462 Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Joseph & Paula Kaufman; however, the PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET did check the box in the petition to have their evidence considered. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 1-bedroom residential condominium built in 1965. There are 16 total units in the subject's complex. It is located at 465 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island. The subject has an adjusted building size of 875 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$87,500, or $100/SF. It is noted that the PAO's original 2016 TRIM amount was for $105,000; however, the PAO voluntarily lowered it to $87,500, which still was not acceptable to the owner. The subject last sold for $65,000 in 12/2011, which was an REO/bank sale. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, evidence list, screen shot of the subject's tax roll information, prior deed of the subject, an aerial photo, building sketch, subject/comparable photographs, Sales Comparison Approach chart, aerial photo noting the location of the subject & comparable improved sales, photos/sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. The subject has a common swimming pool amenity. The subject unit is on the pool side of the building & also the subject is located on the ground floor. The comparable sales used by the PAO also have swimming pool amenities. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 10 improved sales that all closed during 2015. The PAO's assessment is $100/SF of adjusted area X 875 SF = $87,500. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his sales. The lowest $/SF indicator among the PAO's 10 sales is $111/SF, but the figures range from $111-$166/SF. In terms of gross dollars paid, even the significantly smaller units still command reasonably strong prices, such as sales 8, 9, & 10 that all sold between $72K-$85K with only 539 SF/unit, as compared to the subject's 875 SF (and assessment of$87,500). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did not appear for this hearing. The PET submitted a 9/7/16 letter, indicating the PET was not pleased with the amount of increase in the assessment from 2015 to 2016. The PET also indicates a high number of rentals in this condo. The PET provides two different letters dated 9/27/16, photos of the subject building's exterior, the subject's 2016 amended TRIM notice, and the VAB hearing notice. The PET suggests some price ranges for different buildings she deems comparable, and also cites some general sales/listing information. However, the PET's sales sited are vague and general information without specific sale dates, unit sizes, bed/bath count, etc. The PET's information is too generalized to provide meaningful comparative analysis; thus, the PET's evidence is insufficient to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a Received On: 11/28/2016 4:00:02 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00462 presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # 2016-00465 Parcel ID 26034880005 Petitioner name MORGESON, JAY DONNA Property 6020 PELICAN BAY BLVD The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 0 other, explain: 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 440,750.00 440,750.00 440,750.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 440,750.00 440,750.00 440,750.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 440,750.00 440,750.00 440,750.00 *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 0 Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify O Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military 0 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) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Ellen Chadwell Ellen Chadwell 10/26/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 Signature,VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision,the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank,please call 239-252-8399 or visit our web site at https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2016 ❑ Final Decision of the 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: Petition seeks review of a denial of a homestead exemption. Petitioner is Jay and Donna Morgeson, who own property at 6020 Pelican Bay Boulevard #E102, Naples,Florida. Petitioner indicated that they would not be present for the hearing but wanted their evidence considered. The only document submitted by Petitioner was the Petition which was admitted as P. Exhibit 1. The PAO was represented by Anabel Ybaceta and Jennifer Earle. The PAO evidence package consisted of a statement of position, Fla. Stat. 196.011 and an Attorney's General Opinion. This was admitted as PA Ex.1. No application for homestead was made by Petitioner for the subject property. Conclusions of Law: In the absence of a homestead application and a decision by the PAO on said application, there is no action to be reviewed on this appeal. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat.,requires a person owning real property to make application for the homestead exemption, listing and describing the property for which the exemption is claimed. The failure to make application constitutes a waiver of the exemption privilege for that year. S. 196.011, Fla. Stat. The credible and relevant evidence showed that Petitioner failed to make application to the Property Appraiser in accordance with Florida law. PAO cited to the Attorney General Opinion 1001-83, in support of its position. However, this opinion is not dispositive of the question as the specific scenario posed to the Attorney General was one where the petitioner attempted to bypass the Property Appraiser and file an application directly with the Value Adjustment Board. In this case, no application accompanied the petition. Nonetheless, it is clear that Section 196.011, Fla. Stat., requires application. In the absence of any evidence that an application for the exemption had been made on the subject property, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof in this case, 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. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151,and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2016-00470 Parcel ID 78534002807 Petitioner name HALL, DAVID T S LYNN Property 16740 PRATO WAY The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34110 ❑ 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 3,625,470.00 3,625,470.00 3,625,470.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,625,470.00 3,625,470.00 3,625,470.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,625,470.00 3,625,470.00 3,625,470.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing and provided no evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties , 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 # 2016-00471 Parcel ID 16060661004 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 4735 VILLA MARELN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 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 1,588,500.00 1,588,500.00 1,588,500.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,492,700.00 1,492,700.00 1,492,700.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,492,700.00 1,492,700.00 1,492,700.00 *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 ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/24/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Received On: 11/2812016 4:01:26 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No:2016-00472 FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. '►" Effective 11/12 t**" 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 # 2016-00472 Parcel ID 38912760002 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 7325 40THSTNE The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition WI Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 408,429.00 408,429.00 376,200.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 408,429.00 408,429.00 376,200.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 408,429.00 408,429.00 376,200.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axili ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Received On: 11/28/2016 4:01:26 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00472 Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Property Tax Professionals, yet the PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET did not check the box in the petition to have their evidence considered; however, the PET submitted an email request to have their evidence considered. The PAO representatives were sworn in at the beginning of this hearing (TP-472). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 1-story 4-bed/3-bath single family home with a 3-car garage & no pool in Golden Gate Estates. The home was built on 2.2 acres in 2006. There is a drainage canal partially within the subject's back boundary area. The subject is located at 7325 40th Street, [unincorporated] Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 3,757 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$408,429. The subject last sold for $236,000 in 06/2015. According to MLS, the subject is currently [near this hearing date] listed for sale for $459,000, and was offered $549,000 on 01/01/2016. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, subject sketch, front/rear photographs, comparable sales location map, impact fee calculations, 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 $10,500/Acre X 2.20 Acres = $23,100. The PAO considered a total of 5 land sales from the area that range from 1.59 acres to 2.73 acres. The PAO provides a location map for the land sales. Impact fees of $22,579 are also considered by the PAO. The PAO then adds site improvements ($15,000) and the depreciated value of the building improvements ($390,499) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$451,178 in support of the PAO's just value of$408,429. The PAO's Cost Approach conclusion is extremely close to the current list price (as of the hearing date) of$459,000, yet well below the asking price of$549,000 (as of the 1/1/2016 assessment date). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales that all closed during 2015, along with the subject's 1/1/2016 listing for $549,000. The 4 sales were all built between 2003-2007, so they are all very similar in age. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of$120/SF of adjusted area X 3,757 SF = $451,000, which is near the high end of the adjusted range of the 4 sales of$415,278-$458,622. The PAO does provide front photographs & floor plans for each of his 4 (non-subject) sales. PAO's sale #1 is PET's sale #2. PAO's sale 2 is PET's sale #4. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, yet the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach conclusion appears to be aggressive with respect to the PAO's adjusted price indictors from his 4 sales. At the hearing, I did accept the subject's listing (as of the hearing date) of$459,000, which clarifies many of the subject's features. That listing apparently became active on 9/1/2016. The listing also includes interior photographs, which appear to indicate the subject is vacant and in good/ clean interior condition. From the subject's photographs, the subject has high ceilings and a fairly complicated/expensive roof truss system. The PAO notes that PET's sale #1 is 4 miles from the subject, while PET's sale #3 is 5 miles away. I did also accept (from the PAO) into evidence all 4 MLS data for the PET's sales (and the PAO also used 2 of these sales). Visually, the PET's comparables do appear to be reasonably comparable to Received On: 11/28/2016 4:01:27 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00472 the subject, even though 2 are fairly far away. The PAO notes PET's sale 4 (i.e. PAO's sale #2) actually closed 7/1/2015 (and not during 2016, which was a typo in the PET's evidence). PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did NOT appear for this hearing, but submitted an email request to have their evidence considered. The PET's evidence consists of 4 sales in an adjustment grid. The PET does not provide a map locating his sales, nor does the PET provide any photographs or MLS data relating to his sales. (As noted, I did accept MLS data from the PET's sales at this hearing from the PAO.) The PET's grid indicates a value conclusion of$350,000, less a 15% COS adjustment resulting in a figure of$297,500 being requested. It is noted the PET's building sizes are base upon livable areas, while the PAO's presentation and adjustment grid is based upon the adjusted areas. RULING: Based upon the evidence presented, it appears the PAO's assessment is slightly aggressive. The fully adjusted price indicators [before any COS consideration] from the PAO's first 3 sales are $420,747, $415,278, and $418,693, respectively. I give greater weight to the average ($418,012) of the PAO's fully adjusted indicators from his sales 1 & 2 (i.e. $420,747 & $415,278, respectively), since those are sales also used by the PET. Thus, after a 15% COS consideration (reduction) from $418,012, a figure of $376,200 (rounded) is the recommended just value for the subject. The PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness. While the PAO's Cost Approach conclusion was $451,178, there is more subjectivity in estimating depreciation, and the PAO only used 1% per year (which implies a 100-year life). While the reduced asking price (as of the hearing date) was $459,000, it is still necessary to give strongest weight to the actual meetings of the minds between buyers and sellers in the market. The closed sales data is best to accomplish that goal and is given primary weight. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on Received On: 11/2812016 4:01:27 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No:2016-00472 appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 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 # 2016-00473 Parcel ID 45900420004 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 1181 23RDSTSW The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34117 ❑ 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 546,600.00 546,600.00 546,600.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 524,434.00 524,434.00 524,434.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 524,434.00 524,434.00 524,434.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/24/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiql ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00474 Parcel ID 52250010982 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 5133 INAGUAWAY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 [' other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 440,901.00 440,901.00 440,901.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 440,901.00 440,901.00 440,901.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 440,901.00 440,901.00 440,901.00 *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 ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiom ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Received On: 11/28/2016 4:02:15 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00475 F L©R t D A 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 # 2016-00475 Parcel ID 56807760005 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 1818 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 0 other, explain: Decision Summary 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 1,742,279.00 1,742,279.00 1,742,279.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,742,279.00 1,742,279.00 1,742,279.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,742,279.00 1,742,279.00 1,742,279.00 *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 11/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axim ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Received On: 11/28/2016 4:02:15 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00475 Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Property Tax Professionals, yet this PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET submitted an email request to VAB staff to have their evidence considered. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding branch bank building [with canopy drive-thru] that was built in 2006. It is located at 1818 San Marco Road, Marco Island. The subject has an adjusted building size of 4,609 SF, and has a land area of 1.16 acres (50,366 SF). The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $1,742,279, or $378/SF. Prior to the assessment date, the subject had sold for $3,250,000 in 03/2005. The subject also sold (well after the hearing date) as an REO/bank sale in 5/2016 for $1,000,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, witness list of PAO staff, an aerial photo, aerial zoning map, building sketch, photographs, location map, plat/location map, land sales map, land sales grid, Marshall Valuation support, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, improved sales map, improved sales grid, and an Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $40/SF X 50,366 SF = $2,015,000. That land value estimate is based upon 3 land sales & 1 listing (similar in size for $43.23/SF) on Marco Island. One sale closed in 5/16 for $47.38/SF that was extremely close in size to the subject's size; yet it was only considered for trending because it closed after the assessment date. The PAO then adds site improvements ($12,500) and the depreciated value of the improvements ($514,110) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,587,173. As noted by the PAO, the land value by itself supports the assessment, even if the building is disregarded. It should be noted that the impact fees of$121,951 'run with the land', so they further enhance the land value, as well. The PAO provides Marshall Valuation Service data to support the building's contribution within the Cost Approach. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales that all closed during 2015, plus 1 current listing. The average of the 5 indicators was $409/SF. The PAO concludes a Sales Comparison Approach value conclusion of $422/SF of adjusted area X 4,069 SF = $1,717,000. The PAO does provide front photographs for each of his sales, yet no photograph is provided for the listing. One of the problems with the PAO's sales & the one listing is that none of those comparables are located on Marco Island. This is an issue, due to likely differences in land values. Commercial land sales are scarce on Marco Island. Because of a lack of Marco Island improved sales, less weight is given to the PAO's Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a market rental estimate of$45/SF, vacancy of 5%, expenses of 15%, loaded OAR of 7.7% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$1,920,000. The PAO does not provide any specific rent comparables related to his rent projections. However, the PAO does provide a separate evidence package related to prevailing/general rental rates, occupancy rates, and capitalization rates in the Collier County/Naples area relating to different property types (including office properties). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, and in Received On: 11128/2016 4:02:16 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00475 particular with regard to the Cost Approach. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did NOT appear for this hearing; however, the PET did request their submitted evidence be entertained at this hearing. The PET submitted a DR-493 for Collier County, the subject's screen shot summary from the PAO's web site, and the closing statement in 5/2016 for $1M. As stated previously, this was the sale of an REO property from 5/3 Bank. Furthermore, it is NOT evidence leading up to the 1/1/2016 assessment date. Therefore, the PET's evidence is insufficient to refute the assessment. RULING: The PAO's well-supported land value of$2,014,653 + impact fees of $121,951 = $2,136,604 support the PAO's just value of$1,742,279. In addition, there is a modern bank building constructed just 10 years ago in 2006 that still appears to add significant value. The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO; thus, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. F L O R I D A 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 # 2016-00477 Parcel ID 57740360008 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 1671 GALLEON CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ 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 760,457.00 760,457.00 760,457.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 760,457.00 760,457.00 760,457.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 760,457.00 760,457.00 760,457.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiap ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00478 Parcel ID 57800640008 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 535 INLET DR The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 733,753.00 733,753.00 733,753.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 715,021.00 715,021.00 715,021.00 3. Exempt value,*enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 715,021.00 715,021.00 715,021.00 *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 ATTENDEES: The Petitioner was not present at this hearing, did not submit any evidence, &did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The PAO Mr. Don Wegner; however, it was not necessary for him to testify. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 10/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/02/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Received On: 11/2812016 4:03:04 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00479 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# 2016-00479 Parcel ID 58048920000 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 434 SPINNAKER DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E1 taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ 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 843,997.00 843,997.00 843,997.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 843,997.00 843,997.00 843,997.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 843,997.00 843,997.00 843,997.00 *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 (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Received On: 11/28/2016 4:03:04 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00479 Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Property Tax Professionals; however, the PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET did NOT check the box in the petition to have their evidence considered. The PET did not submit any evidence into the record; therefore, the PAO did not have to submit any. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). 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 appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. Received On: 11/28/2016 4:03:31 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00480 FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 tb"" 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 # 2016-00480 Parcel ID 73529000026 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 1845 SAN MARCO RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record E taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I1 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 821,000.00 738,900.00 738,900.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 812,790.00 738,900.00 738,900.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 812,790.00 738,900.00 738,900.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages: as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Received On: 11/28/2016 4:03:32 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00480 Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Don Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner (PET) is represented by Property Tax Professionals, yet this PET did NOT attend the hearing. The PET submitted an email request to VAB staff to have their evidence considered, given the box on the petition for non-attendance was not checked. The PAO representatives were previously sworn in at the beginning of this hearing date (at the beginning of TP-472). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an office condominium built in 2006. It is located at 1845 San Marco Road Suite 100, Marco Island. The subject has an adjusted building size of 4,105 SF. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of $738,900, or $180/SF. The subject last sold for $608,500 in 03/2014. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, potential witness list of PAO staff, evidence list, screen shot of the subject's tax roll information, 3/4/2014 deed of the subject's bank REO sale for $608,442, an aerial photo (showing the subject and sales), subject aerial, subject's site plan, subject's building sketch/floor plans (floors 1-3), subject/comparable photographs/views, Sales Comparison Approach chart, Income Approach worksheet, subject's condo declaration/condo permits, Subject sale comp location map, both retail & office lease comparables and CAM info sheets, Loopnet Retail Market Trends, and photos/aerials/floor plans of the improved comparable sales. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 7 improved sales that all closed during 2015 within the Marco Island market. Four (4) of the building comparable sales are condos, while there are two (2) non-condo sales very close to the subject (i.e. Sale #6 & #7 of much older vintage), which closed for $260/SF and $200/SF, respectively. The PAO's assessment is $180/SF, which appears to be very reasonable for the subject's newer age (built in 2006), relative to the older ages of almost all sale comps except Roman Plaza (built in 2004). It had the sale of 2,334 SF on the ground floor that closed for $225/SF, which appears to be the most similar commercial condo sale in the PAO's roster. The non-condo sales (6 & 7) are more similar in size to the subject, and (as stated) are also in very close proximity to the subject, as well. The PAO does provide front photographs, aerials & floor plans for each of his sales. This approach is given strong weight, given many commercial condos are purchased for the buyer's occupancy as a place to do business. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a gross market rental estimate of$22/SF (i.e. $18 base rent + $4 CAM), vacancy of 5%, expenses of 30%, loaded OAR of 8.2% resulting in an Income Approach value indication of$732,392, or $178.41/SF. This figure is generally supportive of the PAO's assessment, yet there is no COS consideration in this figure. Regardless, for the property type and given so many buyers often purchased commercial condos as a place to conduct their own business operations, I give slightly less weight to the Income Approach. The rental comparables are generally supportive of the PAO's projected gross rental rate in the PAO's Income Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation of two approaches. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET) did NOT appear for this hearing, but did submit a request that their evidence be considered. The PET submitted an email with attached evidence. The evidence in the record consists of a cover sheet, screen shot of the subject's tax roll information, the Collier County DR-493 for 2016, and the Received On: 11/28/2016 4:03:32 PM Magistrates Worksheet Petition No: 2016-00480 subject's closing statement from is 3/7/2014 purchase from a bank (REO sale) for $608,442. That prior sale date is approximately 1.75 years prior to the assessment date. The submitted data by the PET does not demonstrate prevailing market trends or values in the market, as of the assessment date. It merely reflects the acquisition of a distressed asset from a bank. RULING: The PET did not overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness. The weight and preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. Based upon the verbal testimony and written evidence presented, I recommend the PAO's assessment should be upheld. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00481 Parcel ID 66667503751 Petitioner name JESSICA PALOMBI ESQ. Property 7621 BAY COLONYDR The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34108 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Wl Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 20,172,479.00 20,172,479.00 17,250,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,123,579.00 12,123,579.00 12,123,579.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,123,579.00 12,123,579.00 12,123,579.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/10/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties evidence. It also has an architectural style very similar to the subject's style. The PET notes it has been re-listed for sale for $25.9M. Per the PET, its buyer never personally inspected it before buying it, as he is in jail & has never lived in it. The PET says her client [the subject's owner] had offered $19.9M for it. The PAO concludes $2,100/ square foot from the sales X the subject's adjusted area, resulting in a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of$23,661,000. The Petitioner (PET) provides a map of the comparable sales along the Gulf coast in Naples. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a narrative explanation of various sales and data in the Strand, including the PAO's Sale #1 (next door to the subject). The PET provided what appears to be a BPO (broker's price opinion) or CMA (competitive market analysis) prepared by James Jones with Premier Property Management in Naples related to the subject. That BPO/CMA concludes the subject's value at $17.1M; however, it is based upon a rather wide range of parameters. It includes sales prices between $4.35M-$24.5M, 3-6 bedrooms, 2,743-12,505 SF of livable area, and year built between 1982 and 2015. These are extremely broad parameters for the subject; thus, the data set's inclusion of many sales less than $10M tends to be skew the value downward. The PET says that she has been inside 7613 Bay Colony Drive (i.e. PAO's Sale #1 next door) & that it had sold furnished with art work also included. She states it is a larger that the subject and has some superior features compared to the subject (such as a car wash and infinity pool). The PET does provide a copy of the listing for this property for $25.9M, which was its unfurnished price. The PET provided a copy of the subject's listing for $19.9M, and indicates it had been on the market for 2 years without selling. PET states it was taken off the market because the subject's owner had financing on the property & he wanted to refinance; thus, it needed to be taken off the market to refinance it. PET states that there was an offer for $15M, but it was rejected by the subject's owner. The PET also provides a chart of various (9) sales in last 10 years in The Strand. That chart included the prior sale of the subject in 2009 for $14M. It is apparent the sales activity in the Strand has been slow, given owners tend to hold onto these properties for years, in most cases. Plus, there are a limited number of buyers in this expensive price range. The PET gives weight to a fair market value range of$12,672,625-$14,450,000 for the subject, with most weight to a figure of$13,574,000. The PET indicated the subject's owner had a refinance appraisal prepared 8/1/2016 that indicated an $11M lot value (as opposed to the PAO's $18.154M land value in his Cost Approach). I consider information in that refinance appraisal `hearsay', given it is not in evidence and not available for examination. RULING: After considering all of the written evidence and verbal testimony provided for this unique property, I have concluded the PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness based upon the following circumstances: a)The subject was listed for $19,900,000 on the assessment date, which is LESS THAN the PAO's just value of$20,172,479 being contested at this hearing. b) The PAO applied 3% physical depreciation to the main residence, even though the PAO considers it to have an effective year built of 2010, implying 6 years of `effective age'. That level of physical depreciation likely is too low, given many portions of the subject were built in 2002, regardless of renovations to some areas in 2010. c.) The PAO's land value at $150,000/FF may have been slightly aggressive, given it is heavily based upon a residual analysis from Sale #1 next door. That sale was purchased by a jailed buyer who [per the PET's testimony] never even inspected it. Furthermore, that sale [per PET] may have included art work & furnishings in the price. d.) In reference to PAO's sale #1, it is apparent it is the best sale available since it is next door to the subject; however, it is not a perfect sale with regard to its jailed buyer, possible art work & FF&E included, and the fact that it apparently was re-listed again so quickly with no offers even as high as the $24.5M that owner paid in 10/2015. Given the PET overcame the PAO's presumption of correctness, the next issue is whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to point to a reasonable just value figure. The answer is yes, there does appear to be several value indications that tend to congregate around a certain value, as follows: 1)PAO Sale #4 at 4200 Gordon Drive appears to offer some degree of comparability to the subject, in the sense that it was also built in 2002, is similar in adjusted building size at 10,766 SF, has similar FF on the Gulf at 125.35', and it has the same 'high value VI' construction quality as the subject. It does have an excellent view just north of Gordon Pass. It sold for $1,598/SF (unadjusted) X the subject's 11,267 SF = $18,000,400 as one value indicator. 2) PAO Sale #1 (next door) cannot be ignored for comparability to the subject, in the sense that it was also built in 2000, has very similar architectural style, has adjusted building size of 13,868 SF, has similar FF on the Gulf at 132', and it has the same 'high value VI' construction quality as the subject. It shares the same excellent view & has the same `bundle of rights', given it is also in the Strand section. It sold [possibly with some FF&E and art work, which may or may not be true] for $1,767/SF X 85% COS = $1,502/SF (unadjusted) X the subject's 11,267 SF = $16,919,000 as a second value indicator. 3) The PET's evidence included a BPO from a local broker for $17,100,000; however, (if anything) that would appear to be a low value, given it includes a variety of sales below the $10M level that are definitely inferior properties. No COS adjustment is warranted. Nevertheless, $17,100,000 is a third indicator that does not appear to be much different than some of the other indicators considered in my final reconciliation. 4) The PET brings up an interesting relationship, in that the subject and its next door neighbor both sold in 2009. The subject's price was 85% of 7613 Bay Colony Drive at that time. The PET's evidence notes, "Assuming that 7621 is still worth 85% of the value of 7613, 7621 would be estimated to be worth a high of$17,700,000, based on the PAO's market values." In other words, the subject's 2016 assessment should approximate 85% of Sale #1's 2016 assessment of$20,848,736. Thus, doing the math, $20,848,736 X 85% = $17,721,426, as a fourth value indicator. There is some degree of merit to this relationship, given we are dealing with side-by-side properties of similar age, style, view, location, and rights associated with each. Logically, they probably should maintain a similar degree of desirability over time, assuming reasonably good maintenance to both properties. Therefore, their assessments should also maintain a similar relationship. 5) Finally, and most importantly, the subject was listed for $19,900,000 on the assessment date. Assuming a full price sale, less a 15% COS discount, a figure of $16,915,000 would result as a 5th indicator. In summary, there are five reasonable value indicators from the hearing identified above. The average of all 5 is $17,330,000. If the high & low indicators are disregarded, the resulting indicators are $17,721,426, $17,100,000, and $16,919,186. The average of those three is $17,250,000, which is not much different than the prior average of all 5. I give primary weight to a reduced just value assessment of$17,250,000 as being the most reasonable figure resulting from this hearing. The PET has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness, based upon the weight & preponderance of evidence presented. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 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 # 2016-00484 Parcel ID 00296840003 Petitioner name TUSCAN ISLE COMMUNITY LTD Property 8690 WEIRDR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34104 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary EI 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 15,914,149.00 15,914,149.00 15,914,149.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 12,008,821.00 12,008,821.00 12,008,821.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 12,008,821.00 12,008,821.00 12,008,821.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) IZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The PAO representatives were sworn in earlier during this same hearing date; however, there was no need for them to testify at this hearing. The Petitioner (PET) did NOT attend the hearing. Also, the PET did NOT check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not respond to a request from the VAB staff to verify attendance. While the PET had submitted evidence into the record timely, it will not be entertained, due to the PET's non-attendance and lack of response from the PET to entertain that evidence in their absence. The PAO's assessment is 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 and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00486 Parcel ID 85000691450 Petitioner name RITA EUSTROM Property 5960 NAPLESBLVD 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 Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 635,413.00 562,720.00 562,720.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 635,413.00 562,720.00 562,720.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 610,413.00 537,720.00 537,720.00 *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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. CCPAO, herein known as "Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, 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: market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and bench marking conducted annually which confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 # 2016-00487 Parcel ID 85000089790 Petitioner name RITA EUSTROM Property 1602 LAKE TRAFFORD RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address IMMOKALEE, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 171 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 514,039.00 514,039.00 514,039.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 514,039.00 514,039.00 514,039.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 489,039.00 489,039.00 489,039.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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.] a Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. CCPAO, herein known as "Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, 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: market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and bench marking conducted annually which confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 # 2016-00488 Parcel ID 85000153419 Petitioner name RITA EUSTROM Property 4849 GOLDEN GATE PKWY The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary I 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 934,069.00 934,069.00 934,069.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 934,069.00 934,069.00 934,069.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 909,069.00 909,069.00 909,069.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. CCPAO, herein known as "Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, 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: market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and bench marking conducted annually which confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 # 2016-00489 Parcel ID 85000574975 Petitioner name RITA EUSTROM Property 7550 MISSION HILLS DR The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record WI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 2 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 769,591.00 769,591.00 769,591.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 769,591.00 769,591.00 769,591.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 744,591.00 744,591.00 744,591.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axial ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. CCPAO, herein known as "Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, 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: market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and bench marking conducted annually which confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 # 2016-00490 Parcel ID 85000365524 Petitioner name RITA EUSTROM Property 625 COLLIER BLVD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address MARCO ISLAND, FL ❑ other, explain: 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 974,669.00 974,669.00 974,669.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 974,669.00 974,669.00 974,669.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 949,669.00 949,669.00 949,669.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. CCPAO, herein known as "Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, 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: market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and bench marking conducted annually which confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 # 2016-00491 Parcel ID 85000706947 Petitioner name RITA EUSTROM Property 5034 CORONADOPKWY The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary IZ 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 97,192.00 97,192.00 97,192.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 97,192.00 97,192.00 97,192.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 72,192.00 72,192.00 72,192.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(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 11/12/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axi ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. CCPAO, herein known as "Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, 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: market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and bench marking conducted annually which confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 # 2016-00493 Parcel ID 85000582365 Petitioner name RITA EUSTROM Property 2400 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 412,250.00 412,250.00 412,250.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 412,250.00 412,250.00 412,250.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 387,250.00 387,250.00 387,250.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law 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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiv ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: FACTS Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. CCPAO, herein known as "Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, 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: market analysis, data and value comparisons, research and bench marking conducted annually which confirm the just value methodology applied by the CCPAO complies with Section 193-011, F.S. and that professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, have been followed. 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 # 2016-00494 Parcel ID 63935000028 Petitioner name VESTCOR FUND XV LTD Property 10640 NOAHS CIR The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34116 0 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 17,858,014.00 17,858,014.00 17,858,014.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 16,569,920.00 16,569,920.00 16,569,920.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 16,569,920.00 16,569,920.00 16,569,920.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.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: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Dennis Staruch, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The PAO representatives were sworn in earlier during this same hearing date; however, there was no need for them to testify at this hearing. The Petitioner (PET) did NOT attend the hearing. Also, the PET did NOT check the box on the petition for non-attendance and did not respond to a request from the VAB staff to verify attendance. While the PET had submitted evidence into the record timely, it will not be entertained, due to the PET's non-attendance and lack of response from the PET to entertain that evidence in their absence. The PAO's assessment is 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 and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00495 Parcel ID 00201000003 Petitioner name CRP VANDERBILT SANDALWOOD LLC. Property 3535 SANDALWOODCIR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Action Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 18,416,534.00 18,416,534.00 18,416,534.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 18,416,534.00 18,416,534.00 18,416,534.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 18,416,534.00 18,416,534.00 18,416,534.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/27/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) [CRP Vanderbilt Sandalwood, LLC] was represented by both Mr. Jeff Arnold and Mr. Jeff Gray, who did attend the hearing but did not timely submit any evidence into the record for consideration. All parties to the hearing were sworn in at the beginning of this hearing. The PAO did not wish to accept any new evidence at this hearing; thus, I did not accept any. The PET failed to provide evidence, as was requested in their hearing notice. PET did not have sufficient verbal arguments to contest or refute the reasonableness of the PAO's assessment. Even there was no need for the PAO to submit evidence, yet the PAO did submit a full evidence package in advance of the hearing. However, there is no need to review it. The PAO's assessment is upheld. The PET was advised of the VAB rules of procedure and particularly with regard to the timely exchange of evidence. Ms. Blaje noted she had been in contact with 'Sharon' of the owner's staff[now no longer working for the owner] regarding the submittal of evidence in advance of that hearing. Ms. Blaje reiterated to the PAO's objection to the PET submitting any evidence at this late date (at the hearing). The PAO offered to speak with the PET outside this hearing (after my ruling) on an informal basis with no promise of any relief. The PAO's assessment is upheld, given no evidence has been provided by the PET. Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have evidence to submit at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. FLORtDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 it ARTMENT 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 # 2016-00499 Parcel ID 18317240008 Petitioner name 1940 TP LLC Property 1940 TARPONRD The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34102 ❑other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition E 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 2,104,616.00 1,942,900.00 1,750,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,717,101.00 1,716,234.00 1,716,234.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,717,101.00 1,716,234.00 1,716,234.00 *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) WI Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/28/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is custom single family home in the "Royal Harbor" subdivision built in 2001, and it is located on a waterfront (Gulf access) lot with no fixed bridges. It is located at 1940 Tarpon Road in Naples. The subject has an adjusted building size of 3,576 SF. situated upon a waterfront site of 0.25 acres. The subject has Gulf access with no fixed bridges via Gordon Pass. The PET is contesting the PAO's just value of$1,942,900, or $543.32/SF of adjusted building area. It is worth noting the PAO had originally had a 2016 TRIM assessment amount of $2,104,616 [which is even more than the $2M list price after renovations had been completed]; however, the PAO lowered it to $1,942,900, after receiving a call from the owner. The prior sale of the subject was for $1,570,000 in 12/14/2014. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a summary of salient facts/ conclusions, an aerial photo, building sketch, front/rear/view/pool photographs, location/ aerial map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, plat map noting the location of comparable improved & land sales, both city & county impact fee calculations, photos/ sketches of improved comparable sales, and the subject's building card information. At the hearing, I also accepted into evidence a current [as of the hearing date] listing from MLS of the subject for $2M for the purposes of reviewing its photos and features. It is noted that the listing states it was "flawlessly remodeled in 2016". This implies that as of the assessment date, the remodeling was not yet done, yet the subject still may have been a very substantial home, given it was built in 2001. It has additional details about the subject, as well as additional photographs. As of the assessment date, (from the PAO's photographs not part of the listing), it appears the subject has a screen-enclosed side yard lap pool with patio area. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $16,000/front foot, which appears reasonable from the 2015 sales provided. The PAO provides 5 vacant waterfront site indicators, with Land Sale #2 located next door to the subject. The resulting lot value of the subject is $1,228,800. The PAO provides a location map for the sales. The PAO then adds impact fees ($19,751), site improvements ($17,500) and the depreciated value of the improvements/pool ($898,420) for a total Cost Approach estimate of$2,164,471. The PAO's verbal testimony was that the subject was remodeled in `2015', yet the (now) current listing for $2M states it was remodeled in 2016. The PAO only allows for 5% physical depreciation, as of the assessment date in his Cost Approach (i.e. 1%/year for 5 years, instead of 14 or 15 years). The PAO indicates some of the land sales may have previously had homes upon them which could have also had demo costs (offset by the impact benefits those sales would have had vested with them). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents an adjustment grid of 5 improved sales from the immediate waterfront neighborhood. PAO's sale #5 is the PET's sale #3. PAO's sales #2 & #3 are extremely close to the subject & on the same side of the same canal. The PAO assumes the subject has a 2010 effective age, apparently based upon renovations completed (per MLS) in 2016, but PAO assumes completed during 2015. Based upon the adjusted indicators from the sales, the PAO concludes $650/SF X 3,576 SF = $2,324,000 for the subject via the Sales Comparison Approach. PAO's sale #4 appears to be a brand new home that sold for $4.675M. It is on a point lot with superior access. Overall, it appears to be a vastly superior home to the subject, and also much larger at 5,880 adjusted SF, so it is given no weight for comparability to the subject. However, from the PAO's evidence submitted, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness, yet perhaps the PAO's figures may be slightly aggressive. PET TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The Petitioner (PET)/owner did not appear for this hearing. The PET did check the box on the petition for non-attendance. The PET submitted a 5/2/2016 appraisal of the subject for $1.8M, prepared by Rebecca Fisher, SRA (of Naples). That appraisal was prepared for the function of `asset valuation' for a trust. Mr. Quinby did acknowledge knowing her and considered her competent in the local market. Ms. Blaje stated the PAO's office objection to not being able to cross- examine the PET, given the PET did not attend this hearing. In Collier County VAB proceedings, telephone hearings are not conducted, so there was no way to have the PET participate in this hearing, unless the PET attended this hearing. The appraisal provided indicates a "marketing time in the neighborhood analysis is an average of 26 days". This is indicative of a very strong market, particularly in this price range of$2M +/- homes. Such a strong market should also likely imply that a time adjustment to the comparable sales would be warranted, yet the fee appraiser does not make any time adjustments [nor does the PAO either, for that matter in his sales grid]. The field appraiser uses 5 closed sales form 2015, as well as 2 current listings (as of her 5/2016 effective date time frame). The PAO notes that the field appraiser's comp #4 was an REO sale for $1.56M, which does appear to be the lowest sale presented at this hearing by either party; thus, I give it no weight. RULING: While I understand that the PET's field appraisal was prepared 5 months after the assessment date [and likely after all the renovations had been completed], that appraised value is $1,800,000. It could have, but did not, consider any time adjustment for what appears to be an extremely active market. Therefore, I give strong consideration to the $1.8M WITHOUT any additional COS adjustment. As noted by the PAO, the subject had a list price during 2016 (technically after the assessment date) of$2M. Hypothetically assuming it would have even sold for that $2M amount on 1/1/2016, and also applying a 15% COS deduction, that would have resulted in a just value indication of$1.7M, which is a figure I also give strong consideration to at this hearing. Thus, I have a $1.8M figure and a $1.7M figure worthy of consideration that both would appear reasonable just value possibilities for the subject. Giving equal weight to both, I conclude the appropriate just value is $1.75M, under the circumstance. The exact degree of renovations completed as of the 1/1/2016 assessment date appears somewhat confusing from the data, but at best, it would not be unreasonable that the subject would sell for more than its $2M asking price months after the assessment date. The PAO's assessment of$1,942,900 appears to be far too aggressive compared to the $2M figure, without allowing for much COS consideration. From the weight & preponderance of evidence, the Petitioner (PET) has overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness, and the just value should be lowered to $1,750,000. Conclusions of Law: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has indicated that their evidence and petition should be considered. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 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 # 2016-00526 Parcel ID 38392920006 Petitioner name SCARIANO, CHARLES R NANCY A Property 5386 SYCAMOREDR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record EI taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 121 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 NoticeRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 1,604,321.00 1,604,321.00 1,200,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,074,600.00 1,074,600.00 1,074,600.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,024,600.00 1,024,600.00 1,024,600.00 *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 Petitioner overcame the established presumption of correctness[194.301, F.S.]. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of$1,200,000. [12D-9.027, F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/18/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/18/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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: Petitioner provided good analysis of comparable market data to support a reduction. 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 # 2016-00527 Parcel ID 55751003929 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 9800 TREVISO BAY BLVD The petitioner is: [' taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 ❑ other, explain: 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 84,534.00 84,534.00 84,534.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 84,534.00 84,534.00 84,534.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 84,534.00 84,534.00 84,534.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/11/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: Petitions TP-527, 528, 529, 530, & 531 were all heard together, as they are all part of the same operating property. At this hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Gaylord "Jay" Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO). The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Don Bennett, who did attend the hearing. Mr. Bennett stated he was acting as an advocate for the owner, and being compensated based upon a portion of savings achieved. This is not an uncommon arrangement for non-appraisers representing property owners. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of hearing 2016-532 prior to this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as `Treviso Bay Golf Club', which filed its articles of incorporation in December 2011. It is owned by Lennar Homes & it consists of 201 acres of land (157.99 golf and 43.01 lakes/preserve/conservation areas). The subject has 36 golf holes, no clubhouse, 3 ancillary maintenance buildings, and restroom improvements all within the Treviso Bay. The subject consists of non-contiguous areas separated by streets. The PET is contesting the subject's [combined] just value of $3,866,697, or $107,408 per hole. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, aerial photo, various ground level photos of the subject buildings, subject location map, subject sketches [cart storage, and ancillary maintenance/other buildings], Marshall Valuation cost support, business cards of various PAO officials, subject's building card information, & impact fee calculations. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 4 older land sales that closed back in 1998-88 for golf course construction. These sales relate to the non- preserve areas of the subject. Those sales ranged in price from $9,432-$15,277/acre, and the PAO does not apply any appreciation factor for the many years that have transpired. The PAO concludes $14,000/acre from the data X 157.99 acres =$2,211,860, which appears supported by 3 of the 4 sales. The PAO values the lakes/conservation/preserve areas at a nominal $400/acre X 43.01 acres = $17,204. Thus, the combined raw land value estimated by the PAO is $2,229,064. The PAO then adds depreciated building amounts for the various buildings, impact fees ($320,926), paving ($106,260) and site improvements ($50,000) for a final Cost Approach value of$5,512,303. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 8 golf course sales improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Each golf course is priced on a per hole basis, and the sales range from 18, 27, & 36-hole sales. Three of the sales closed since August 2014, while the other 5 closed between December 2009-November 2011. At the hearing, the PAO made a correction to the August 2014 sale of Pelican Strand, which was actually 27 holes (not 18), for a revised cost per hole of$303,000. That correction did not warrant the PAO to revise his estimated cost per hole for the subject. It remained $365,000/hole X 36 holes = $6.57M, less TPP of$165,557, for a revised 'real property' value via the Sales Comparison Approach of$6,404,443. In rebuttal to the PAO's sales, the PET argues that the Golf Club of the Everglades sale (#7 by the PAO) included residential land along with it, which is why Pulte purchased it. Pulte would not have made that acquisition without ample residential land associated with that sale, as Pulte is in the home building business, not in the golf course operations business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 30,000 rounds [i.e. 15,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$9,782,609, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$9,331,617. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$165,557 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. This inconsistency is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $72,917/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that most of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's [combined] entire assessment of$3,877,697. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with ancillary buildings (but no clubhouse); thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. As a separate, but VERY IMPORTANT part of the testimony related to this hearing, Mr. Wood (counsel for the PAO) brought up the primary issue as to why Mr. Bennett filed these 5 petitions. As Mr. Wood stated, the PET really filed these petitions to have these properties exempt from real property taxation, given it is the PET's position the golf course operations are actually part of the "bundled" community common elements owned by 825 of the PUD's residents. Mr. Bennett notes however, that there are additional homes/residents of the community (i.e. in excess of the 825 equity owners in this golf club) that were already there before Lennar purchased the failed assets of this community and golf course operation. Those other residents do NOT benefit from any form of `equity' associated with the subject golf course. Mr. Wood cites F.S. Section 193.0235(1), as follows: "Ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessment shall be assessed against the lot within a platted residential subdivision and not upon the subdivision property as a whole. An ad valorem tax or no- ad valorem assessment, including a tax or assessment imposed by a county, municipality, special district, or water management district, may not be assessed separately against common elements UTILIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP." [Caps intentionally added for emphasis] Because Mr. Wood was citing a letter he had previously written to the PAO's office specifically related to the subject at Treviso Bay Golf Club, I requested that he provide into evidence a copy of that letter (which he did provide and I accepted it). That letter and Mr. Wood's testimony at this hearing also related to the subject's golf course having an affiliation/license agreement with the Tournament Players Club (TPC) to allow for outside play at the subject by non-residents. Mr. Bennett indicated the subdivision was at the point of conversion of the golf club to the residents, by virtue of achieving a pre-set level of the subdivision's sellout and that the owner no longer wanted to be taxed separately for this golf course. However, in this particular instance, it would appear that Lennar cannot have it both ways by having the subject exempt from taxation, yet at the same time allowing non-residents of the community (such as TPC members) the rights to play. The rights granted to the TPC allow for touring pro members the right to play the course, various membership tiers of the TPC to play (for pay), and for certain TPC events/tournaments to be held at the subject property. As Mr. Wood argues, it would appear that agreement would have to be terminated [and no other similar arrangements exist] with the TPC before the subject could be eligible for tax exemption. As an outside issue, I questioned whether the subject is being taxed as a golf course, yet ALSO the individual equity owners are also being taxed for their respective 1/825 shares in the course. It would seem unfair that they would be, and also unfair for some of the other (non-equity) members of the same PUD be taxed identically the same as the equity members. This is a matter for the PAO's office to resolve, as these are issues beyond the scope of this hearing. Mr. Wood's letter (in evidence) cites case law from two cases in Sarasota County affirming this matter and describing a similar situation. PETITIONER (PET) TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a substantial amount of evidence into the record, and also prepared a 3-ring binder of that same evidence for my consideration. That data contains an aerial photograph of the subject, site plan, copy of the plat, corporate filing of Treviso Bay Golf Club with the State of Florida Department of State, copy of the Treviso Bay Property Owners Master Association and Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. documents, and the Bylaws of Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. It is important to stress that the PET's evidence package DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VALUATION-RELATED EVIDENCE. This is a valuation hearing; thus, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. RULING: It is stressed that this is a VALUE-related hearing of the Collier County Value Adjustment Board. This is NOT an `exemption' hearing, which are heard by attorney magistrates, not appraiser magistrates. I am an appraiser magistrate. Because the PET FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY VALUE-RELATED EVIDENCE, the PET failed 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. That being said, the Petitioner and PAO should both be careful to properly assess not only the subject's golf course operation in the future, but also the non-subject residential units within this same community. Some DO HAVE some apparent rights associated with the subject golf course via an equity golf arrangement comprised of 825 units; while at the same time, there are additional non-equity golf units within the same subdivision that DO NOT SHARE that same `bundle of rights'. This particular hearing his not about non-petitioned interests. However, the PAO should be careful in the assessment of those non-petitioned properties, as their rights may differ. Furthermore, those rights should not receive double taxation by the PAO. As I stated on the record at this hearing, the subject's owner should try to legally resolve some the subject's taxation issue (or possible exemption) in a manner consistent with FL law and consulting with the PAO's office to ensure proper compliance. That likely will entail the eventual dissolution with the TPC, and/or any other outside pay-for-play arrangements. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00528 Parcel ID 55751004025 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 9955 CORSO BELLO DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 0 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 576,750.00 576,750.00 576,750.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 576,750.00 576,750.00 576,750.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 576,750.00 576,750.00 576,750.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.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 12/11/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: Petitions TP-527, 528, 529, 530, & 531 were all heard together, as they are all part of the same operating property. At this hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Gaylord "Jay" Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO). The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Don Bennett, who did attend the hearing. Mr. Bennett stated he was acting as an advocate for the owner, and being compensated based upon a portion of savings achieved. This is not an uncommon arrangement for non-appraisers representing property owners. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of hearing 2016-532 prior to this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as `Treviso Bay Golf Club', which filed its articles of incorporation in December 2011. It is owned by Lennar Homes & it consists of 201 acres of land (157.99 golf and 43.01 lakes/preserve/conservation areas). The subject has 36 golf holes, no clubhouse, 3 ancillary maintenance buildings, and restroom improvements all within the Treviso Bay. The subject consists of non-contiguous areas separated by streets. The PET is contesting the subject's [combined] just value of $3,866,697, or $107,408 per hole. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, aerial photo, various ground level photos of the subject buildings, subject location map, subject sketches [cart storage, and ancillary maintenance/other buildings], Marshall Valuation cost support, business cards of various PAO officials, subject's building card information, & impact fee calculations. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 4 older land sales that closed back in 1998-88 for golf course construction. These sales relate to the non- preserve areas of the subject. Those sales ranged in price from $9,432-$15,277/acre, and the PAO does not apply any appreciation factor for the many years that have transpired. The PAO concludes $14,000/acre from the data X 157.99 acres =$2,211,860, which appears supported by 3 of the 4 sales. The PAO values the lakes/conservation/preserve areas at a nominal $400/acre X 43.01 acres = $17,204. Thus, the combined raw land value estimated by the PAO is $2,229,064. The PAO then adds depreciated building amounts for the various buildings, impact fees ($320,926), paving ($106,260) and site improvements ($50,000) for a final Cost Approach value of$5,512,303. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 8 golf course sales improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Each golf course is priced on a per hole basis, and the sales range from 18, 27, & 36-hole sales. Three of the sales closed since August 2014, while the other 5 closed between December 2009-November 2011. At the hearing, the PAO made a correction to the August 2014 sale of Pelican Strand, which was actually 27 holes (not 18), for a revised cost per hole of$303,000. That correction did not warrant the PAO to revise his estimated cost per hole for the subject. It remained $365,000/hole X 36 holes = $6.57M, less TPP of$165,557, for a revised 'real property' value via the Sales Comparison Approach of$6,404,443. In rebuttal to the PAO's sales, the PET argues that the Golf Club of the Everglades sale (#7 by the PAO) included residential land along with it, which is why Pulte purchased it. Pulte would not have made that acquisition without ample residential land associated with that sale, as Pulte is in the home building business, not in the golf course operations business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 30,000 rounds [i.e. 15,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$9,782,609, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$9,331,617. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$165,557 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. This inconsistency is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $72,917/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that most of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's [combined] entire assessment of$3,877,697. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with ancillary buildings (but no clubhouse); thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. As a separate, but VERY IMPORTANT part of the testimony related to this hearing, Mr. Wood (counsel for the PAO) brought up the primary issue as to why Mr. Bennett filed these 5 petitions. As Mr. Wood stated, the PET really filed these petitions to have these properties exempt from real property taxation, given it is the PET's position the golf course operations are actually part of the "bundled" community common elements owned by 825 of the PUD's residents. Mr. Bennett notes however, that there are additional homes/residents of the community (i.e. in excess of the 825 equity owners in this golf club) that were already there before Lennar purchased the failed assets of this community and golf course operation. Those other residents do NOT benefit from any form of `equity' associated with the subject golf course. Mr. Wood cites F.S. Section 193.0235(1), as follows: "Ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessment shall be assessed against the lot within a platted residential subdivision and not upon the subdivision property as a whole. An ad valorem tax or no- ad valorem assessment, including a tax or assessment imposed by a county, municipality, special district, or water management district, may not be assessed separately against common elements UTILIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP." [Caps intentionally added for emphasis] Because Mr. Wood was citing a letter he had previously written to the PAO's office specifically related to the subject at Treviso Bay Golf Club, I requested that he provide into evidence a copy of that letter (which he did provide and I accepted it). That letter and Mr. Wood's testimony at this hearing also related to the subject's golf course having an affiliation/license agreement with the Tournament Players Club (TPC) to allow for outside play at the subject by non-residents. Mr. Bennett indicated the subdivision was at the point of conversion of the golf club to the residents, by virtue of achieving a pre-set level of the subdivision's sellout and that the owner no longer wanted to be taxed separately for this golf course. However, in this particular instance, it would appear that Lennar cannot have it both ways by having the subject exempt from taxation, yet at the same time allowing non-residents of the community (such as TPC members) the rights to play. The rights granted to the TPC allow for touring pro members the right to play the course, various membership tiers of the TPC to play (for pay), and for certain TPC events/tournaments to be held at the subject property. As Mr. Wood argues, it would appear that agreement would have to be terminated [and no other similar arrangements exist] with the TPC before the subject could be eligible for tax exemption. As an outside issue, I questioned whether the subject is being taxed as a golf course, yet ALSO the individual equity owners are also being taxed for their respective 1/825 shares in the course. It would seem unfair that they would be, and also unfair for some of the other (non-equity) members of the same PUD be taxed identically the same as the equity members. This is a matter for the PAO's office to resolve, as these are issues beyond the scope of this hearing. Mr. Wood's letter (in evidence) cites case law from two cases in Sarasota County affirming this matter and describing a similar situation. PETITIONER (PET) TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a substantial amount of evidence into the record, and also prepared a 3-ring binder of that same evidence for my consideration. That data contains an aerial photograph of the subject, site plan, copy of the plat, corporate filing of Treviso Bay Golf Club with the State of Florida Department of State, copy of the Treviso Bay Property Owners Master Association and Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. documents, and the Bylaws of Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. It is important to stress that the PET's evidence package DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VALUATION-RELATED EVIDENCE. This is a valuation hearing; thus, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. RULING: It is stressed that this is a VALUE-related hearing of the Collier County Value Adjustment Board. This is NOT an `exemption' hearing, which are heard by attorney magistrates, not appraiser magistrates. I am an appraiser magistrate. Because the PET FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY VALUE-RELATED EVIDENCE, the PET failed 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. That being said, the Petitioner and PAO should both be careful to properly assess not only the subject's golf course operation in the future, but also the non-subject residential units within this same community. Some DO HAVE some apparent rights associated with the subject golf course via an equity golf arrangement comprised of 825 units; while at the same time, there are additional non-equity golf units within the same subdivision that DO NOT SHARE that same `bundle of rights'. This particular hearing his not about non-petitioned interests. However, the PAO should be careful in the assessment of those non-petitioned properties, as their rights may differ. Furthermore, those rights should not receive double taxation by the PAO. As I stated on the record at this hearing, the subject's owner should try to legally resolve some the subject's taxation issue (or possible exemption) in a manner consistent with FL law and consulting with the PAO's office to ensure proper compliance. That likely will entail the eventual dissolution with the TPC, and/or any other outside pay-for-play arrangements. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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# 2016-00529 Parcel ID 55751002124 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 9942 CORSO BELLO DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL [' other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part 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 1,668,083.00 1,668,083.00 1,668,083.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,526,401.00 1,526,401.00 1,526,401.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,526,401.00 1,526,401.00 1,526,401.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/11/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axill ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: Petitions TP-527, 528, 529, 530, & 531 were all heard together, as they are all part of the same operating property. At this hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Gaylord "Jay" Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO). The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Don Bennett, who did attend the hearing. Mr. Bennett stated he was acting as an advocate for the owner, and being compensated based upon a portion of savings achieved. This is not an uncommon arrangement for non-appraisers representing property owners. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of hearing 2016-532 prior to this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as `Treviso Bay Golf Club', which filed its articles of incorporation in December 2011. It is owned by Lennar Homes & it consists of 201 acres of land (157.99 golf and 43.01 lakes/preserve/conservation areas). The subject has 36 golf holes, no clubhouse, 3 ancillary maintenance buildings, and restroom improvements all within the Treviso Bay. The subject consists of non-contiguous areas separated by streets. The PET is contesting the subject's [combined] just value of $3,866,697, or $107,408 per hole. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, aerial photo, various ground level photos of the subject buildings, subject location map, subject sketches [cart storage, and ancillary maintenance/other buildings], Marshall Valuation cost support, business cards of various PAO officials, subject's building card information, & impact fee calculations. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 4 older land sales that closed back in 1998-88 for golf course construction. These sales relate to the non- preserve areas of the subject. Those sales ranged in price from $9,432-$15,277/acre, and the PAO does not apply any appreciation factor for the many years that have transpired. The PAO concludes $14,000/acre from the data X 157.99 acres =$2,211,860, which appears supported by 3 of the 4 sales. The PAO values the lakes/conservation/preserve areas at a nominal $400/acre X 43.01 acres = $17,204. Thus, the combined raw land value estimated by the PAO is $2,229,064. The PAO then adds depreciated building amounts for the various buildings, impact fees ($320,926), paving ($106,260) and site improvements ($50,000) for a final Cost Approach value of$5,512,303. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 8 golf course sales improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Each golf course is priced on a per hole basis, and the sales range from 18, 27, & 36-hole sales. Three of the sales closed since August 2014, while the other 5 closed between December 2009-November 2011. At the hearing, the PAO made a correction to the August 2014 sale of Pelican Strand, which was actually 27 holes (not 18), for a revised cost per hole of$303,000. That correction did not warrant the PAO to revise his estimated cost per hole for the subject. It remained $365,000/hole X 36 holes = $6.57M, less TPP of$165,557, for a revised 'real property' value via the Sales Comparison Approach of$6,404,443. In rebuttal to the PAO's sales, the PET argues that the Golf Club of the Everglades sale (#7 by the PAO) included residential land along with it, which is why Pulte purchased it. Pulte would not have made that acquisition without ample residential land associated with that sale, as Pulte is in the home building business, not in the golf course operations business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 30,000 rounds [i.e. 15,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$9,782,609, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$9,331,617. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$165,557 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. This inconsistency is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $72,917/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that most of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's [combined] entire assessment of$3,877,697. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with ancillary buildings (but no clubhouse); thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. As a separate, but VERY IMPORTANT part of the testimony related to this hearing, Mr. Wood (counsel for the PAO) brought up the primary issue as to why Mr. Bennett filed these 5 petitions. As Mr. Wood stated, the PET really filed these petitions to have these properties exempt from real property taxation, given it is the PET's position the golf course operations are actually part of the "bundled" community common elements owned by 825 of the PUD's residents. Mr. Bennett notes however, that there are additional homes/residents of the community (i.e. in excess of the 825 equity owners in this golf club) that were already there before Lennar purchased the failed assets of this community and golf course operation. Those other residents do NOT benefit from any form of `equity' associated with the subject golf course. Mr. Wood cites F.S. Section 193.0235(1), as follows: "Ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessment shall be assessed against the lot within a platted residential subdivision and not upon the subdivision property as a whole. An ad valorem tax or no- ad valorem assessment, including a tax or assessment imposed by a county, municipality, special district, or water management district, may not be assessed separately against common elements UTILIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP." [Caps intentionally added for emphasis] Because Mr. Wood was citing a letter he had previously written to the PAO's office specifically related to the subject at Treviso Bay Golf Club, I requested that he provide into evidence a copy of that letter (which he did provide and I accepted it). That letter and Mr. Wood's testimony at this hearing also related to the subject's golf course having an affiliation/license agreement with the Tournament Players Club (TPC) to allow for outside play at the subject by non-residents. Mr. Bennett indicated the subdivision was at the point of conversion of the golf club to the residents, by virtue of achieving a pre-set level of the subdivision's sellout and that the owner no longer wanted to be taxed separately for this golf course. However, in this particular instance, it would appear that Lennar cannot have it both ways by having the subject exempt from taxation, yet at the same time allowing non-residents of the community (such as TPC members) the rights to play. The rights granted to the TPC allow for touring pro members the right to play the course, various membership tiers of the TPC to play (for pay), and for certain TPC events/tournaments to be held at the subject property. As Mr. Wood argues, it would appear that agreement would have to be terminated [and no other similar arrangements exist] with the TPC before the subject could be eligible for tax exemption. As an outside issue, I questioned whether the subject is being taxed as a golf course, yet ALSO the individual equity owners are also being taxed for their respective 1/825 shares in the course. It would seem unfair that they would be, and also unfair for some of the other (non-equity) members of the same PUD be taxed identically the same as the equity members. This is a matter for the PAO's office to resolve, as these are issues beyond the scope of this hearing. Mr. Wood's letter (in evidence) cites case law from two cases in Sarasota County affirming this matter and describing a similar situation. PETITIONER (PET) TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a substantial amount of evidence into the record, and also prepared a 3-ring binder of that same evidence for my consideration. That data contains an aerial photograph of the subject, site plan, copy of the plat, corporate filing of Treviso Bay Golf Club with the State of Florida Department of State, copy of the Treviso Bay Property Owners Master Association and Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. documents, and the Bylaws of Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. It is important to stress that the PET's evidence package DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VALUATION-RELATED EVIDENCE. This is a valuation hearing; thus, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. RULING: It is stressed that this is a VALUE-related hearing of the Collier County Value Adjustment Board. This is NOT an `exemption' hearing, which are heard by attorney magistrates, not appraiser magistrates. I am an appraiser magistrate. Because the PET FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY VALUE-RELATED EVIDENCE, the PET failed 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. That being said, the Petitioner and PAO should both be careful to properly assess not only the subject's golf course operation in the future, but also the non-subject residential units within this same community. Some DO HAVE some apparent rights associated with the subject golf course via an equity golf arrangement comprised of 825 units; while at the same time, there are additional non-equity golf units within the same subdivision that DO NOT SHARE that same `bundle of rights'. This particular hearing his not about non-petitioned interests. However, the PAO should be careful in the assessment of those non-petitioned properties, as their rights may differ. Furthermore, those rights should not receive double taxation by the PAO. As I stated on the record at this hearing, the subject's owner should try to legally resolve some the subject's taxation issue (or possible exemption) in a manner consistent with FL law and consulting with the PAO's office to ensure proper compliance. That likely will entail the eventual dissolution with the TPC, and/or any other outside pay-for-play arrangements. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. FLORIDA DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/12 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002,F.A.C. Effective 11/12 DEP RTMEN 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 # 2016-00530 Parcel ID 55751002108 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 9949 CORSO BELLO DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 171 taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34113 0 other, explain: Decision Summary II 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 1,375,682.00 1,375,682.00 1,375,682.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,375,682.00 1,375,682.00 1,375,682.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,375,682.00 1,375,682.00 1,375,682.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.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 12/11/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: Petitions TP-527, 528, 529, 530, & 531 were all heard together, as they are all part of the same operating property. At this hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Gaylord "Jay" Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO). The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Don Bennett, who did attend the hearing. Mr. Bennett stated he was acting as an advocate for the owner, and being compensated based upon a portion of savings achieved. This is not an uncommon arrangement for non-appraisers representing property owners. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of hearing 2016-532 prior to this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as `Treviso Bay Golf Club', which filed its articles of incorporation in December 2011. It is owned by Lennar Homes & it consists of 201 acres of land (157.99 golf and 43.01 lakes/preserve/conservation areas). The subject has 36 golf holes, no clubhouse, 3 ancillary maintenance buildings, and restroom improvements all within the Treviso Bay. The subject consists of non-contiguous areas separated by streets. The PET is contesting the subject's [combined] just value of $3,866,697, or $107,408 per hole. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, aerial photo, various ground level photos of the subject buildings, subject location map, subject sketches [cart storage, and ancillary maintenance/other buildings], Marshall Valuation cost support, business cards of various PAO officials, subject's building card information, & impact fee calculations. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 4 older land sales that closed back in 1998-88 for golf course construction. These sales relate to the non- preserve areas of the subject. Those sales ranged in price from $9,432-$15,277/acre, and the PAO does not apply any appreciation factor for the many years that have transpired. The PAO concludes $14,000/acre from the data X 157.99 acres =$2,211,860, which appears supported by 3 of the 4 sales. The PAO values the lakes/conservation/preserve areas at a nominal $400/acre X 43.01 acres = $17,204. Thus, the combined raw land value estimated by the PAO is $2,229,064. The PAO then adds depreciated building amounts for the various buildings, impact fees ($320,926), paving ($106,260) and site improvements ($50,000) for a final Cost Approach value of$5,512,303. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 8 golf course sales improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Each golf course is priced on a per hole basis, and the sales range from 18, 27, & 36-hole sales. Three of the sales closed since August 2014, while the other 5 closed between December 2009-November 2011. At the hearing, the PAO made a correction to the August 2014 sale of Pelican Strand, which was actually 27 holes (not 18), for a revised cost per hole of$303,000. That correction did not warrant the PAO to revise his estimated cost per hole for the subject. It remained $365,000/hole X 36 holes = $6.57M, less TPP of$165,557, for a revised 'real property' value via the Sales Comparison Approach of$6,404,443. In rebuttal to the PAO's sales, the PET argues that the Golf Club of the Everglades sale (#7 by the PAO) included residential land along with it, which is why Pulte purchased it. Pulte would not have made that acquisition without ample residential land associated with that sale, as Pulte is in the home building business, not in the golf course operations business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 30,000 rounds [i.e. 15,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$9,782,609, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$9,331,617. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$165,557 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. This inconsistency is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $72,917/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that most of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's [combined] entire assessment of$3,877,697. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with ancillary buildings (but no clubhouse); thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. As a separate, but VERY IMPORTANT part of the testimony related to this hearing, Mr. Wood (counsel for the PAO) brought up the primary issue as to why Mr. Bennett filed these 5 petitions. As Mr. Wood stated, the PET really filed these petitions to have these properties exempt from real property taxation, given it is the PET's position the golf course operations are actually part of the "bundled" community common elements owned by 825 of the PUD's residents. Mr. Bennett notes however, that there are additional homes/residents of the community (i.e. in excess of the 825 equity owners in this golf club) that were already there before Lennar purchased the failed assets of this community and golf course operation. Those other residents do NOT benefit from any form of `equity' associated with the subject golf course. Mr. Wood cites F.S. Section 193.0235(1), as follows: "Ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessment shall be assessed against the lot within a platted residential subdivision and not upon the subdivision property as a whole. An ad valorem tax or no- ad valorem assessment, including a tax or assessment imposed by a county, municipality, special district, or water management district, may not be assessed separately against common elements UTILIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP." [Caps intentionally added for emphasis] Because Mr. Wood was citing a letter he had previously written to the PAO's office specifically related to the subject at Treviso Bay Golf Club, I requested that he provide into evidence a copy of that letter (which he did provide and I accepted it). That letter and Mr. Wood's testimony at this hearing also related to the subject's golf course having an affiliation/license agreement with the Tournament Players Club (TPC) to allow for outside play at the subject by non-residents. Mr. Bennett indicated the subdivision was at the point of conversion of the golf club to the residents, by virtue of achieving a pre-set level of the subdivision's sellout and that the owner no longer wanted to be taxed separately for this golf course. However, in this particular instance, it would appear that Lennar cannot have it both ways by having the subject exempt from taxation, yet at the same time allowing non-residents of the community (such as TPC members) the rights to play. The rights granted to the TPC allow for touring pro members the right to play the course, various membership tiers of the TPC to play (for pay), and for certain TPC events/tournaments to be held at the subject property. As Mr. Wood argues, it would appear that agreement would have to be terminated [and no other similar arrangements exist] with the TPC before the subject could be eligible for tax exemption. As an outside issue, I questioned whether the subject is being taxed as a golf course, yet ALSO the individual equity owners are also being taxed for their respective 1/825 shares in the course. It would seem unfair that they would be, and also unfair for some of the other (non-equity) members of the same PUD be taxed identically the same as the equity members. This is a matter for the PAO's office to resolve, as these are issues beyond the scope of this hearing. Mr. Wood's letter (in evidence) cites case law from two cases in Sarasota County affirming this matter and describing a similar situation. PETITIONER (PET) TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a substantial amount of evidence into the record, and also prepared a 3-ring binder of that same evidence for my consideration. That data contains an aerial photograph of the subject, site plan, copy of the plat, corporate filing of Treviso Bay Golf Club with the State of Florida Department of State, copy of the Treviso Bay Property Owners Master Association and Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. documents, and the Bylaws of Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. It is important to stress that the PET's evidence package DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VALUATION-RELATED EVIDENCE. This is a valuation hearing; thus, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. RULING: It is stressed that this is a VALUE-related hearing of the Collier County Value Adjustment Board. This is NOT an `exemption' hearing, which are heard by attorney magistrates, not appraiser magistrates. I am an appraiser magistrate. Because the PET FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY VALUE-RELATED EVIDENCE, the PET failed 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. That being said, the Petitioner and PAO should both be careful to properly assess not only the subject's golf course operation in the future, but also the non-subject residential units within this same community. Some DO HAVE some apparent rights associated with the subject golf course via an equity golf arrangement comprised of 825 units; while at the same time, there are additional non-equity golf units within the same subdivision that DO NOT SHARE that same `bundle of rights'. This particular hearing his not about non-petitioned interests. However, the PAO should be careful in the assessment of those non-petitioned properties, as their rights may differ. Furthermore, those rights should not receive double taxation by the PAO. As I stated on the record at this hearing, the subject's owner should try to legally resolve some the subject's taxation issue (or possible exemption) in a manner consistent with FL law and consulting with the PAO's office to ensure proper compliance. That likely will entail the eventual dissolution with the TPC, and/or any other outside pay-for-play arrangements. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00531 Parcel ID 55751002140 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 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 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 161,648.00 161,648.00 161,648.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 147,918.00 147,918.00 147,918.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 147,918.00 147,918.00 147,918.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), F.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 12/11/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: Petitions TP-527, 528, 529, 530, & 531 were all heard together, as they are all part of the same operating property. At this hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Gaylord "Jay" Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO). The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Don Bennett, who did attend the hearing. Mr. Bennett stated he was acting as an advocate for the owner, and being compensated based upon a portion of savings achieved. This is not an uncommon arrangement for non-appraisers representing property owners. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of hearing 2016-532 prior to this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as `Treviso Bay Golf Club', which filed its articles of incorporation in December 2011. It is owned by Lennar Homes & it consists of 201 acres of land (157.99 golf and 43.01 lakes/preserve/conservation areas). The subject has 36 golf holes, no clubhouse, 3 ancillary maintenance buildings, and restroom improvements all within the Treviso Bay. The subject consists of non-contiguous areas separated by streets. The PET is contesting the subject's [combined] just value of $3,866,697, or $107,408 per hole. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted a table of contents, aerial photo, various ground level photos of the subject buildings, subject location map, subject sketches [cart storage, and ancillary maintenance/other buildings], Marshall Valuation cost support, business cards of various PAO officials, subject's building card information, & impact fee calculations. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and Income Approach. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 4 older landsales that closed back in 1998-88 for golf course construction. These sales relate to the non- preserve areas of the subject. Those sales ranged in price from $9,432-$15,277/acre, and the PAO does not apply any appreciation factor for the many years that have transpired. The PAO concludes $14,000/acre from the data X 157.99 acres =$2,211,860, which appears supported by 3 of the 4 sales. The PAO values the lakes/conservation/preserve areas at a nominal $400/acre X 43.01 acres = $17,204. Thus, the combined raw land value estimated by the PAO is $2,229,064. The PAO then adds depreciated building amounts for the various buildings, impact fees ($320,926), paving ($106,260) and site improvements ($50,000) for a final Cost Approach value of$5,512,303. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 8 golf course sales improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Each golf course is priced on a per hole basis, and the sales range from 18, 27, & 36-hole sales. Three of the sales closed since August 2014, while the other 5 closed between December 2009-November 2011. At the hearing, the PAO made a correction to the August 2014 sale of Pelican Strand, which was actually 27 holes (not 18), for a revised cost per hole of$303,000. That correction did not warrant the PAO to revise his estimated cost per hole for the subject. It remained $365,000/hole X 36 holes = $6.57M, less TPP of$165,557, for a revised 'real property' value via the Sales Comparison Approach of$6,404,443. In rebuttal to the PAO's sales, the PET argues that the Golf Club of the Everglades sale (#7 by the PAO) included residential land along with it, which is why Pulte purchased it. Pulte would not have made that acquisition without ample residential land associated with that sale, as Pulte is in the home building business, not in the golf course operations business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 30,000 rounds [i.e. 15,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$9,782,609, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$9,331,617. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$165,557 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. This inconsistency is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $72,917/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that most of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's [combined] entire assessment of$3,877,697. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with ancillary buildings (but no clubhouse); thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. As a separate, but VERY IMPORTANT part of the testimony related to this hearing, Mr. Wood (counsel for the PAO) brought up the primary issue as to why Mr. Bennett filed these 5 petitions. As Mr. Wood stated, the PET really filed these petitions to have these properties exempt from real property taxation, given it is the PET's position the golf course operations are actually part of the "bundled" community common elements owned by 825 of the PUD's residents. Mr. Bennett notes however, that there are additional homes/residents of the community (i.e. in excess of the 825 equity owners in this golf club) that were already there before Lennar purchased the failed assets of this community and golf course operation. Those other residents do NOT benefit from any form of`equity' associated with the subject golf course. Mr. Wood cites F.S. Section 193.0235(1), as follows: "Ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessment shall be assessed against the lot within a platted residential subdivision and not upon the subdivision property as a whole. An ad valorem tax or no- ad valorem assessment, including a tax or assessment imposed by a county, municipality, special district, or water management district, may not be assessed separately against common elements UTILIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP." [Caps intentionally added for emphasis] Because Mr. Wood was citing a letter he had previously written to the PAO's office business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 30,000 rounds [i.e. 15,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$9,782,609, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$9,331,617. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$165,557 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. This inconsistency is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $72,917/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that most of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's [combined] entire assessment of$3,877,697. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with ancillary buildings (but no clubhouse); thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. As a separate, but VERY IMPORTANT part of the testimony related to this hearing, Mr. Wood (counsel for the PAO) brought up the primary issue as to why Mr. Bennett filed these 5 petitions. As Mr. Wood stated, the PET really filed these petitions to have these properties exempt from real property taxation, given it is the PET's position the golf course operations are actually part of the "bundled" community common elements owned by 825 of the PUD's residents. Mr. Bennett notes however, that there are additional homes/residents of the community (i.e. in excess of the 825 equity owners in this golf club) that were already there before Lennar purchased the failed assets of this community and golf course operation. Those other residents do NOT benefit from any form of`equity' associated with the subject golf course. Mr. Wood cites F.S. Section 193.0235(1), as follows: "Ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessment shall be assessed against the lot within a platted residential subdivision and not upon the subdivision property as a whole. An ad valorem tax or no- ad valorem assessment, including a tax or assessment imposed by a county, municipality, special district, or water management district, may not be assessed separately against common elements UTILIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP." [Caps intentionally added for emphasis] Because Mr. Wood was citing a letter he had previously written to the PAO's office specifically related to the subject at Treviso Bay Golf Club, I requested that he provide into evidence a copy of that letter (which he did provide and I accepted it). That letter and Mr. Wood's testimony at this hearing also related to the subject's golf course having an affiliation/license agreement with the Tournament Players Club (TPC) to allow for outside play at the subject by non-residents. Mr. Bennett indicated the subdivision was at the point of conversion of the golf club to the residents, by virtue of achieving a pre-set level of the subdivision's sellout and that the owner no longer wanted to be taxed separately for this golf course. However, in this particular instance, it would appear that Lennar cannot have it both ways by having the subject exempt from taxation, yet at the same time allowing non-residents of the community (such as TPC members) the rights to play. The rights granted to the TPC allow for touring pro members the right to play the course, various membership tiers of the TPC to play (for pay), and for certain TPC events/tournaments to be held at the subject property. As Mr. Wood argues, it would appear that agreement would have to be terminated [and no other similar arrangements exist] with the TPC before the subject could be eligible for tax exemption. As an outside issue, I questioned whether the subject is being taxed as a golf course, yet ALSO the individual equity owners are also being taxed for their respective 1/825 shares in the course. It would seem unfair that they would be, and also unfair for some of the other (non-equity) members of the same PUD be taxed identically the same as the equity members. This is a matter for the PAO's office to resolve, as these are issues beyond the scope of this hearing. Mr. Wood's letter (in evidence) cites case law from two cases in Sarasota County affirming this matter and describing a similar situation. PETITIONER (PET) TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PET submitted a substantial amount of evidence into the record, and also prepared a 3-ring binder of that same evidence for my consideration. That data contains an aerial photograph of the subject, site plan, copy of the plat, corporate filing of Treviso Bay Golf Club with the State of Florida Department of State, copy of the Treviso Bay Property Owners Master Association and Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. documents, and the Bylaws of Treviso Bay Golf Club, Inc. It is important to stress that the PET's evidence package DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VALUATION-RELATED EVIDENCE. This is a valuation hearing; thus, the PET fails to overcome the PAO's presumption of correctness established at the hearing. RULING: It is stressed that this is a VALUE-related hearing of the Collier County Value Adjustment Board. This is NOT an `exemption' hearing, which are heard by attorney magistrates, not appraiser magistrates. I am an appraiser magistrate. Because the PET FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY VALUE-RELATED EVIDENCE, the PET failed 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. That being said, the Petitioner and PAO should both be careful to properly assess not only the subject's golf course operation in the future, but also the non-subject residential units within this same community. Some DO HAVE some apparent rights associated with the subject golf course via an equity golf arrangement comprised of 825 units; while at the same time, there are additional non-equity golf units within the same subdivision that DO NOT SHARE that same `bundle of rights'. This particular hearing his not about non-petitioned interests. However, the PAO should be careful in the assessment of those non-petitioned properties, as their rights may differ. Furthermore, those rights should not receive double taxation by the PAO. As I stated on the record at this hearing, the subject's owner should try to legally resolve some the subject's taxation issue (or possible exemption) in a manner consistent with FL law and consulting with the PAO's office to ensure proper compliance. That likely will entail the eventual dissolution with the TPC, and/or any other outside pay-for-play arrangements. Conclusions of Law: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00532 Parcel ID 00210280102 Petitioner name DON BENNETT Property 11611 IMMOKALEE RD The petitioner is: ❑taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34120 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z 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 10,210,955.00 10,210,955.00 10,210,955.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 10,210,955.00 10,210,955.00 10,210,955.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 10,210,955.00 10,210,955.00 10,210,955.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 12/11/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 12/15/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axili ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Gaylord "Jay" Wood, Esq. (legal counsel to the PAO). The Petitioner's agent was Mr. Don Bennett, who did attend the hearing. Mr. Bennett stated he was acting as an advocate for the owner, and being compensated based upon a portion of savings achieved. This is not an uncommon arrangement for non-appraisers representing property owners. All parties were sworn in at the beginning of the hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject consists of 1,027.79 acres of land (454.33 golf and 573.46 of preserve/ conservation areas). The subject has 36 golf holes, a clubhouse of 10,127 SF, ancillary maintenance buildings, cart storage, and restroom improvements all within the Bonita Bay East PUD. The majority of the subject consists of contiguous areas; however, there is one non-contiguous preserve area that is separated. The address of the property is 11611 Immokalee Road. The subject is 2.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard. The PET is contesting the subject's just value of$10,210,955, or $283,637 per hole. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted various ground level photos of the subject buildings, table of contents for evidence, an aerial photograph, subject location map, subject sketches [clubhouse, cart storage, and ancillary maintenance/other buildings], Marshall Valuation cost support, prior 2010 deed for the subject for $7.5M [for property in both Collier & Lee Counties], business cards of various PAO officials, subject's building card information, & impact fee calculations. The PAO uses the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, Income Approach, & reconciliation. In the Cost Approach, the PAO presents a land sales map and a grid of 4 older land sales that closed back in 1998-88 for golf course construction. These sales relate to the non- preserve areas of the subject. Those sales ranged in price from $9,432-$15,277/acre, and the PAO does not apply any appreciation factor for the many years that have transpired. The PAO concludes $14,000/acre from the data X 454.33 acres =$6,360,620, which appears supported by 3 of the 4 sales. Land Sales #1-#4 are much smaller sites, yet all located in close proximity to the subject. The PAO values the lakes/conservation/ preserve areas at a nominal $50/acre, for a total of$28,673. Thus, the combined raw land value estimated by the PAO is $6,389,293. The PAO then adds depreciated building amounts for the various buildings, impact fees ($579,336), paving ($454,758) and site improvements ($100,000) for a final Cost Approach value of$17,832,440. It is noted that the impact fees are levied at both the City & County levels, and the PAO provides back-up calculations for both. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO presents a grid of 8 golf course sales improved sales in the Southwest Florida market area. Each golf course is priced on a per hole basis, and the sales range from 18, 27, & 36-hole sales. Three of the sales closed since August 2014, while the other 5 closed between December 2009-November 2011. At the hearing, the PAO made a correction to the August 2014 sale of Pelican Strand, which was actually 27 holes (not 18), for a revised cost per hole of$303,000. That correction then resulted in the PAO revising his estimated cost per hole for the subject downward slightly to $400,000/hole X 36 holes = $14.4M, less TPP of$610,129, for a revised 'real property' value via the Sales Comparison Approach of$13,789,871. In rebuttal to the PAO's sales, the PET argues that the Golf Club of the Everglades sale (#7 by the PAO) included residential land along with it, which is why Pulte purchased it. Pulte would not have made that acquisition without ample residential land associated with that sale, as Pulte is in the home building business, not in the golf course operations business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 40,000 rounds [i.e. 20,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$13,043,478, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$12,592,486. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$610,129 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. [Note: Based upon the PET's evidence & copy of the TPP bill, the correct figure is $610,129 for 2016.] This is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $97,222/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that many of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's entire assessment of$10.2M. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with a 10,127 SF clubhouse; thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. Mr. Woods notes the subject has $75K initiation fees, with $14,500 annual dues for golf memberships. Outside memberships (i.e. non-resident memberships) are also available. The PAO does provide a summary/reconciliation of the 3 approaches, all which individually exceed the contested just value of$10,210,955. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. PETITIONER (PET) TESTIMONY/EVIDENC'E: The PET submitted a substantial amount of evidence into the record, and also prepared a 3-ring binder of that same evidence for my consideration. That data was organized with a table of contents and 40 different items that are too lengthy to itemize inthis ruling in a timely manner. Briefly stated, the PET's evidence relates to the subject's physical descriptions, letter of authorization, subject's prior 2010 deed, assessment breakdowns and tax roll data, building card data, specific roster and identification of the subject's conservation easements, many different (and lengthy) legal descriptions, Collier County golf course map, tangible taxes/assessment, FL Statutes (particularly pertaining to conservation easements), zoning maps/information, future land use map, and back-up support for various golf course sales. The PET makes notes to the prior $7.5M deed that the price included a total of 90 holes [54 in Lee County], main clubhouse, fitness center, 18 tennis courts, etc. The PET provides a lengthy roster of 159 golf courses located in Collier & Lee Counties (combined). Each is categorized by its membership status (owned or private), bundled, or municipal/open to public play. The PET provides a very brief description of each of those 159 courses, along with aerials of each. The PET requests an ad valorem just value (i.e. net of TPP) of$7,100,000 (rounded), or $197,222/hole. The PET only uses the Sales comparison Approach to value. The PET presents a grid of 6 golf course sales (all 18-hole & all closed in 2015) from Sarasota, Manatee, Lee, and Collier Counties. The PET provides substantial back-up data related to each of these sales. Only sale #6 (Quarry Golf Club) was in Collier; however, PET's sale #4 (Eagle Ridge) and #5 (Burnt Store) are in Lee County. #5 was an REO sale, and not given any weight, given it was the low end of the selected sales at just $67,281/hole (after 15% COS deduction). Sales 1 through #4 ranged from $88,069-$153,472/hole (after the 15% COS deduction). The PET gives primary weight to the 12/18/2015 sale of the Quarry Golf Club [1 mile west of the subject] for $4.5M from the developer to the membership. That sale was for the 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, maintenance building, ancillary facilities, and FF&E. It also has a beach club and approximately 150 acres of lakes. After at 15% COS discount, the PET indicates that sale at $212,500/hole, then uses that figure X the subject's 36 holes for a figure of$7.65M, less TPP of$610,871, for a resulting just value figure of$7,039,871. The PET rounds that number to $7.1M in his initial summary at the beginning of his evidence package. The PAO argues that the PET's heavy reliance upon the Quarry Golf Club sale is flawed, as it was really the transfer from the developer to its members, but the members had already paid substantial funds in membership fees. It is not really the same as an arm's length sale from one party to another without any ties associated between the parties, such as the memberships. The PAO does also use the Quarry Golf Club sale in his own evidence as sale #8, RULING: The PAO provides three approaches to value. In the PAO's Cost Approach, the raw land value is based upon very old data, given (apparently) there have been no new land sales in many years specifically for constructing a golf course without also including surrounding lands for residential development. However, the fact that so quite a few golf course renovation projects in the area (as supported by PAO's articles provided in his 'golf course support data' package), have renovation costs as much (if not more) than the entire subject assessment of$10.2M+ is significant. Those courses and clubhouses being renovated are not all being rebuilt from scratch. They (in many cases) are renovations to existing courses and buildings, yet some do involve partial new construction or additions. The PAO does have a roster of 8 sales considered, yet one of those sales (#8, the Quarry Golf Club) is shared with the PET. The PAO does consider two fairly recent sales of golf courses. Pelican Strand sold in 2014 for $303,000/hole, and the Golf Club of the Everglades sold in March 2015 (apparently adjusted by the PAO for residential land) at $645,833/hole. The PAO had 4 other sales provided in excess [before COS deduction] of $283K/hole; whereas, the contested assessment is $283,637. However, the PET basically puts his entire appeal on the merits of one sale , which is actually (as the PAO notes) a mixture of a purchase price of$7.5M, with the fact that the members had already previously paid a substantial sum in memberships over time. It is not the same thing as a fully arm's length transaction. The PAO also provides an Income Approach to support the assessment. The PAO could have and should have provided back-up data to support the PAO's inputs used, but the PAO did not do so. There should be ample market information related to expenses per hole, golf course cap rates, and golf course pay-for-play fees in the SW Florida market available on a seasonal and non- seasonal basis to provide good support for the PAO's inputs. With only one [questionable] sale given primarily reliance at this hearing, 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: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 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 # 2016-00537 Parcel ID 40529800000 Petitioner name REYES, BELLE, ERADYS CANDELARIO Property 3870 14THAVE NE The petitioner is: Q 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 p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 400,783.00 357,895.00 357,895.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 400,783.00 357,895.00 357,895.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 350,783.00 307,895.00 307,895.00 *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 Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 # 2016-00538 Parcel ID 40529800107 Petitioner name HERRERA, JOSE Property 3860 14THAVE NE The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34117 ❑ 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 203,990.00 203,990.00 203,990.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 195,357.00 195,357.00 195,357.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 195,357.00 195,357.00 195,357.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values 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 opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.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 Pulte would not have made that acquisition without ample residential land associated with that sale, as Pulte is in the home building business, not in the golf course operations business. Mr. Quinby noted that he was aware of that, which is why he adjusted (discounted) that sale price heavily to take out the residential land component. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects a rate of$125/round of golf X 40,000 rounds [i.e. 20,000 rounds/course], less 70% expenses for NOI of$1.5M. The PAO applies a cap rate of 11.5%, resulting in a value indication of$13,043,478, less TPP of$450,992, resulting in an Income Approach value indication of the real property of$12,592,486. It is noted the PAO inconsistently uses TPP of$610,129 in his Sales Comparison Approach, yet uses $450,992 in his Income Approach. [Note: Based upon the PET's evidence & copy of the TPP bill, the correct figure is $610,129 for 2016.] This is not significant in this hearing, given the magnitude of these approaches and degree to which they exceed the contested just value. While the PAO's Income Approach inputs do not necessarily appear unreasonable, the PAO does not provide any support for his projected number of rounds, rate per round, expenses (which equate to $97,222/hole), or cap rates related to golf courses. It is worthy to note the PAO provides a separate evidence submittal of 45 pages called 'golf course support data'. That golf-related information is primarily based upon published articles over recent years in the local media related to at least 13 Collier golf courses. Most articles focus on planned renovations to golf and/or clubhouse facilities within various PUDs in the Naples/Fort Myers region. What is significant is that many of the area's planned renovation projects individually exceed the subject's entire assessment of$10.2M. The subject has an existing 36 holes, along with a 10,127 SF clubhouse; thus,just the magnitude of renovations at other local courses/clubhouses tends to support the reasonableness of the subject's assessment. The nature of the vast majority of equity golf courses in Collier County make it necessary to analyze them (for assessment purposes) on a 'pay for play' basis, even though typically members pay some form of initiation fees to join, and then pay separate annual dues. Mr. Woods notes the subject has $75K initiation fees, with $14,500 annual dues for golf memberships. Outside memberships (i.e. non-resident memberships) are also available. The PAO does provide a summary/reconciliation of the 3 approaches, all which individually exceed the contested just value of$10,210,955. From the data presented, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation, particularly with respect to his Cost Approach and land value support. PETITIONER (PET) TESTIMONY/EVIDENC'E: The PET submitted a substantial amount of evidence into the record, and also prepared a 3-ring binder of that same evidence for my consideration. That data was organized with a table of contents and 40 different items that are too lengthy to itemize inthis ruling in a timely manner. Briefly stated, the PET's evidence relates to the subject's physical descriptions, letter of authorization, subject's prior 2010 deed, assessment breakdowns and tax roll data, building card data, specific roster and identification of the subject's conservation easements, many different (and lengthy) legal descriptions, Collier County golf course map, tangible taxes/assessment, FL Statutes (particularly pertaining to conservation easements), zoning maps/information, future land use map, and back-up support for various golf course sales. The PET makes notes to the prior $7.5M deed that the price included a total of 90 holes [54 in Lee County], main clubhouse, fitness center, 18 tennis courts, etc. The PET provides a lengthy roster of 159 golf courses located in Collier & 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# 2016-00541 Parcel ID 14044880007 Petitioner name TEMPEL SMITH TRUST, RIVA CORPORATil Property 850 6TH AVE S 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 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 2,253,230.00 2,253,230.00 2,253,230.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,903,836.00 1,903,836.00 1,903,836.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,903,836.00 1,903,836.00 1,903,836.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/08/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/08/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: The Petitioner did not attend the hearing & did not check the box on the petition to indicate non-attendance. The Petitioner did not indicate a desire to have their evidence considered in their absence; therefore, it was not considered. The PAO reps (Mr. Jeep Quinby & Ms. Jenny Blaje) were previously sworn in earlier this same hearing date; however, did not need to testify at this hearing. The PAO's assessment is 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 and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an aciton in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00542 Parcel ID 85000666744 Petitioner name GULFSHORE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Property 1044 CASTELLODR The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value from After Board 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 9,529.00 9,529.00 9,529.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 9,529.00 9,529.00 9,529.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 9,529.00 9,529.00 9,529.00 4. Taxable value,* required 0.00 0.00 0.00 *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 Petitioner opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing and did not have the Special Magistrate consider any evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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 11/12/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 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 # 2016-00567 Parcel ID 76925000708 Petitioner name DANIEL H SHAPIRA FAM TRUST Property 2178 MIRAMONTE WAY The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34105 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition [' Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1 and 4 must be completedRule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 2,037,515.00 2,037,515.00 2,037,515.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,978,361.00 1,978,361.00 1,978,361.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,978,361.00 1,978,361.00 1,978,361.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values 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 opted on their petition to not appear at the hearing but to have the Special Magistrate consider their evidence in Petitioner's absence. A hearing was held in Petitioner's absence as requested by petitioner. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. 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.] 171 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Mark Pelletier Mark Pelletier 11/13/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/16/2016 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://www.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 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 # 2016-00580 Parcel ID 16003400002 Petitioner name 0 HARE, DONALD J CYNTHIA M Property 520 TURTLE HATCHRD The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34103 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 1 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 1,008,175.00 1,008,175.00 1,008,175.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,008,175.00 1,008,175.00 1,008,175.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 958,175.00 958,175.00 958,175.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/24/2016 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axian ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Dennis Staruch, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The PAO representatives were sworn in earlier during this same hearing date; however, there was no need for them to testify at this hearing. The Petitioner (PET) did NOT attend the hearing. While the PET did check the box on the petition for non-attendance, the PET did NOT submit any evidence for consideration. Therefore, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. The PAO's assessment is upheld. (V6) Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing but the Petitioner has requested that their evidence and petition should be considered. However, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 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 # 2016-00581 Parcel ID 69770002188 Petitioner name MARYAM AYAD REV TRUST Property 3418 ADRIATICCT The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address NAPLES, FL 34119 ❑ 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 p Rule 12D-9.025(10),F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 770,721.00 770,721.00 770,721.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 744,425.00 744,425.00 744,425.00 3. Exempt value,* enter"0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 744,425.00 744,425.00 744,425.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values.School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages. as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Watson Scott Watson 11/28/2016 Signature,special magistrate Print name Date Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Clerk 11/28/2016 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://www.collierclerk.com/axiau ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature,chair,value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature,VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Findings of Fact: ATTENDEES: At that hearing, the PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, and Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner is represented by the owners (Mr. & Mrs. Ayad), and they did attend the hearing. All parties were sworn in at this hearing. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO was not required to submit any evidence into the record, given the PET failed to provide any evidence in a timely manner. I did accept three different packages of generic tax roll information from the PAO's office relating to DOR matters, the drug store petition addendum data, and the commercial petition addendum data. However, it is important to note that all of that information from the PAO was not specific to this particular hearing (TP-581). All of this information was offered to the PET, if he desired a copy of it. The PAO did not wish to accept any new evidence at this hearing from the PET; thus, I upheld this request in fairness to the PAO. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: The PET failed to submit any evidence in advance of the hearing, but the PET did receive a hearing notice. I did not accept any new evidence at this hearing from the PET. RULING: The PET fails to provide ANY evidence for consideration pertaining to the subject. Therefore, the PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law: The Petitioner appeared at the hearing but the Petitioner did not have evidence to submit at the hearing. Since the Petitioner had no evidence to submit at the hearing, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired.