The URL can be used to link to this page

2020 SM Recommendations'(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00002 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00002 54690000246 KUGELMAN, LOIS 6438 LEGACYCIR NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 360,750.00 360,750.00 360,750.00 360,750.00 360,750.00 360,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 360,750.00 360,750.00 360,750.00 ✔✔ (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Lois Kugelman, who is appealing the denial of a homestead and widow's exemption for property located at 6438 Legacy Circle, #304, Naples, Florida. Petitioner was not present but indicated on her Petition that she would like her evidence to be considered. Petitioner submitted a 4-page document which was admitted without objection as P's Exhibit 1. The Petition was admitted as P's Exhibit 2. The Property Appraiser was presented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of the Exemption Department ("PAO"). The PAO offered its evidence package consisting of 21 pages, which was admitted as PAO Composite Ex. 1. PAO's Request for Evidence was admitted as PAO Ex. 2. Both these exhibits were relevant to the matter, and therefore admitted on that basis. Petitioner closed on the subject property on December 26, 2019. (P. Ex. 1, p.2) Petitioner applied for a homestead exemption for 2020 on February 25, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 8) The application stated that Petitioner did not occupy the property until February 25, 2020. This fact was corroborated by the application for Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference, which was filed at the same time and stated that Petitioner resided at her former residence at Arden Circle until that date. (PAO Ex. 1, p.9) Petitioner also supplemented the application with a statement explaining why the property was not occupied as of January 1. (PAO Ex. 1, p.11) Other written statements by Petitioner stated that she moved into the new condominium on January 20, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 11, 21; P. Ex. 1) Petitioner underwent surgery for breast cancer on September 5, 2019, and completed chemotherapy on December 26, 2019. (P. Ex. 1) Petitioner alleged that she was unable to move into the subject property by January 1 because of the chemotherapy. (P. Ex. 1) As part of her application she submitted a death certificate of her husband, David Kugelman. (PAO Ex.1, p.10) Petitioner did not update her driver's license and her voter's registration until May 25, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 12-17) The applications for homestead and widow exemption and transfer of the Homestead Assessment Difference were both denied by the PAO on May 29, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 20-21). The Notice of Disapproval adequately explained the reasons for the denial. Conclusions of Law: The Florida Constitution provides that every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner. . .shall be exempt from taxation thereon . . .." Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. When determining whether the property owner is entitled to an exemption, the operative date is January 1. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. Section 196.031(1)(a) restates this requirement and provides that a “person who, on January 1, has the legal title . . . to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence. . . is entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . ..” “Permanent residence” is defined as “that place where a 2020-00002 Page 2 of 5 person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment to which, whenever absent, he or she has the intention of returning. Section 196.012(17), Fla. Stat. Rule 12D-7.007(1), Fla. Admin. Code, states that “for one to make a certain parcel of land his permanent home, he must reside thereon with a present intention of living there indefinitely and with no present intention of moving therefrom.” Petitioner has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s denial of the homestead and widow’s exemptions for 2020 were wrong and that Petitioner maintained her permanent residence on the subject property as of January 1, 2020. The Property Appraiser's denials of these exemptions met the statutory requirements of s. 196.193, Fla. Stat., as they adequately apprised the Petitioners of the reason for the denial and are therefore valid. Although homestead protections are favored by Florida courts, homestead exemptions, like all exemptions from the legal obligation of taxes, must be strictly construed. Capital City Country Club, Inc. v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 448, 452 (Fla. 1993), aff'd in part, 101 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 2012). In addition to strict construction of the statute, the courts are required to give words their plain and ordinary meaning. "Residence" is defined in part as "bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary both define "residence" as "[t]he place in which one lives; the act or fact of dwelling in a place for some time or the act of living or regularly staying at or in the same place." Thus, the plain and ordinary understanding of the constitutional provision to "maintain" "the permanent residence" on a piece of property, requires that a taxpayer preserve and continue in possession of a dwelling that the taxpayer physically occupies as a home and intends to return to whenever absent. Baldwin v. Henriquez, 279 So. 3d 328, 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). There is no dispute that Petitioner owned the property as of January 1, 2020. To establish the property as her homestead, Petitioner needed to live in the condo and make it her permanent residence on January 1, 2020. This she did not do by her own admission. Moreover, her statement to the PAO that the subject property was “not ready to move in” due to remodeling work, suggests that the residence was not ready for habitation in January. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 11) The Baldwin case, and others, makes it clear that the property must be capable of habitation on January 1. While it is possible to live in a dwelling while certain renovations are being made, this determination could not be made due to a lack of evidence as to the nature of these renovations. The evidence as to when Petitioner actually moved into the condominium at Legacy Circle is likewise inconclusive. Petitioner stated on her homestead application that she occupied the residence on February 25, 2020, but contradicted this in a letter to Abe Skinner dated June 8, 2020, wherein she wrote that she moved into the residence in mid- January. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 21). The Application for Transfer of Homestead Difference also stated that she continued to reside at her 2019 homesteaded condo at Arden Circle. Greater weight was given to the applications which were made under penalties of 2020-00002 Page 3 of 5 perjury. These applications clearly stated that she resided in her Arden Circle home until February 25, 2020. In the instant case, Petitioner was not residing on the property in January. However, the Florida Supreme Court opinion in Semple v. Semple, 89 So. 638 (Fla. 1921) reminds us that a bodily presence as of January 1 is not always needed in order to “occupy” a premises or otherwise establish a permanent residence. In Semple, the Supreme Court explained that "[w]here it is clearly the manifest intention of the owner to occupy the premises immediately as a home, and this intention is evidenced by specific acts and doings that are not compatible with a different intention, and there is nothing done by the claimant showing a different intention, or that is inconsistent with the asserted intention to make the place his homestead, the homestead character will attach." In the instant case, the Special Magistrate only has the documentary evidence to rely upon in evaluating Petitioner’s intent, which was conflicting and, in some cases, merely inferential. The evidence is insufficient to prove by a preponderance that Petitioner intended and did in fact occupy the subject property as of January 1, 2020. The “specific acts and doings” performed by Petitioner only evidence the remodeling of a second home. All official records requiring a change of address in the event of a change in permanent residency were not updated by Petitioner until the end of May. While Petitioner may have been affected by the Covid19 lock down order, as implied in her letter to Abe Skinner, Petitioner had three months to effect the necessary changes if it were her intent in December to inhabit the Legacy Circle condo on as of January 1. Moreover, it was clear from her statements that she never intended to reside in the subject property by January 1; rather, she intended to remodel the condo before living there. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 21 ) Petitioner argued in her written statement that her cancer treatment made it to difficult for her to carry out her plans and move into the Legacy Circle condo by January 1. While these unfortunate circumstances may constitute extenuating circumstances sufficient to justify an untimely application for homestead, or an untimely appeal of a denial, they are not a legal excuse for missing the statutory date for the establishment of homestead, and the Value Adjustment Board has no authority under Florida law to grant her exemptions on that basis. Moreover, they appeared contradicted by her own statements that renovations in the condo had to be performed in January, thereby preventing her from moving in. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 11, 21) Perhaps both of these things are true, but the Special Magistrate was not afforded the opportunity to hear directly from Petitioner. Much of Petitioner’s evidence was conflicted and could have been resolved and supplemented through credible testimony. However, Florida Statute provides that the Property Appraiser should rely on certain documents to establish the necessary intent to maintain a permanent residence, such as voter’s registration and Florida driver license. This evidence showed that Petitioner established her permanent residence well after January 1, 2020, and was therefore relied upon by the PAO in denying her homestead application. 2020-00002 Page 4 of 5 The overall weight of the credible and relevant evidence presented by Petitioner was not sufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of proof to show that the PAO was wrong in its denial, and that she was entitled to a homestead exemption. Because Petitioner did not qualify the Legacy Circle property as her homestead for 2020, she was not eligible for a widow’s exemption on that property or the transfer of the homestead assessment difference. The Special Magistrate therefore recommends that the petition be denied. 2020-00002 Page 5 of 5 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00003 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00003 40528640009 PATRICK & ERIKA PIERCE 3781 14THAVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120✔ ✔ 385,585.00 385,585.00 385,585.00 385,585.00 385,585.00 385,585.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 385,585.00 385,585.00 335,585.00 ✔ (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/16/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact: Petitioners, Patrick and Erika Pierce, are appealing a denial of homestead exemption on property located at 3781 14th Avenue NE, Naples, Florida. Both Petitioners were present. Property Appraiser's Office was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions Department, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of the Exemptions Department. Petitioners offered a 2-page document as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, which contained a discharge summary from Mr. Pierce's doctor, as evidence. This document was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 without objection. The PAO introduced their evidence package consisting of thirty-one pages, which was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioners were sworn in. The PAO representatives were reminded that they were still under oath from the previous hearing. Petitioners purchased the property in October, 2019 and had moved ninety percent (90%) of their belongings into the home by the end of October and established utility service to the home. (Erika Pierce) However, Petitioners did not apply for their homestead exemption until February 7, 2020 (PAO Ex. 1, p.7). The application was denied on May 29, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 31). Petitioners stated on their application that their date of occupancy was October 1, 2019, but that they first became residents on January 8, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, p.7) Petitioner explained that the January 8 date was when the last of their belongings were moved into the home. (P. Pierce) Petitioners moved to Florida from California and surrendered their California driver's licenses on January 16 and 21, 2020 when they acquired a new Florida driver's license. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 9, 11-22) They closed on the sale of their California home on or about December 23, 2019 and stayed in a hotel until they were able to travel to Florida. (P. Pierce) They purchased their Florida home with the intention to move permanently to Florida. (Pierce) As of January 1, 2020, they owned the subject property and intended to make it their permanent residence. Petitioners were unable to leave California by the end of 2019 because of Patrick Pierce's hernia surgery in early December and the closing down of their business, Pacific Shade Sales. (P. Pierce; P. Ex. 1) Conclusions of Law: The Florida Constitution provides that every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner. . .shall be exempt from taxation thereon . . .." Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. When determining whether the property owner is entitled to an exemption, the operative date is January 1. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. Section 196.031(1)(a) restates this requirement and provides that a “person who, on January 1, has the legal title . . . to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence. . . is entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . ..” “Permanent residence” is defined as “that place where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment to which, whenever absent, he or she has the intention of returning." Section 196.012(17), Fla. Stat. 2020-00003 Page 2 of 4 Petitioners have the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s denial of the homestead exemption for 2020 was wrong and that Petitioners maintained their permanent residence on the subject property, 3781 14th Avenue NE, Naples, as of January 1, 2020. The Property Appraiser's denial was valid under s. 196.193, Fla. Stat., as it adequately apprised the Petitioners of the reason for the denial. There is no dispute that Petitioners owned the property as of January 1, 2020. And, the evidence presented by the parties was relevant and credible to establish Petitioners' intent to permanently reside on the property as Florida residents. Both the Florida Constitution and s.196.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat., require that the owner maintain a “permanent residence” on the property. Rule 12D-7.007(1), Fla. Admin. Code, states that “for one to make a certain parcel of land his permanent home, he must reside thereon with a present intention of living there indefinitely and with no present intention of moving therefrom.” At issue in this case is whether Petitioners' actions qualify as establishing and maintaining a residence on the subject property as of January 1, 2020 and thereby meet the legal requirements for a homestead exemption. Florida law requires that exemptions from the legal obligation of taxes be strictly construed. Capital City Country Club, Inc. v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 448, 452 (Fla. 1993), aff'd in part, 101 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 2012). And, when interpreting a statute, courts are required to give words their plain and ordinary meaning. "Residence" is defined in part as "bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place." Residence, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary both define "residence" as "[t]he place in which one lives; the act or fact of dwelling in a place for some time or the act of living or regularly staying at or in the same place." Thus, the plain and ordinary understanding of the word "residence" means "a dwelling" in which one is an inhabitant. Although neither Petitioner was physically present on the property as of January 1, 2020, the Special Magistrate concludes as a matter of law, that they did in fact occupy the dwelling and establish their homestead thereon as of January 1. The Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Baldwin v. Henriquez, 279 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) and the Florida Supreme Court opinion in Semple v. Semple, 89 So. 638 (Fla. 1921) are helpful in resolving this question. In Baldwin, the taxpayers sold their original homestead and purchased another residence in June, 2013. In November they demolished the dwelling on the new property and did not complete the new home until June, 2015. When they realized they would not be able to complete construction, due to no fault of their own, and occupy the home as of January 1, 2015, they camped on the property for one night and changed their driver’s license and voter registration to reflect the new address. The Baldwins did not move into the home until June, 2015, and the final Certificate of Occupancy was not issued until January, 2016. The Baldwin court found that based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the constitutional provision to "maintain" "the permanent residence" on a piece of property, a taxpayer must preserve and continue in possession of a dwelling that the taxpayer physically occupies as a home and intends to return to whenever absent. Because the taxpayers in Baldwin could not 2020-00003 Page 3 of 4 physically occupy an incomplete structure, the act of sleeping on the property in a tent was insufficient to establish a permanent residence. While the definitions of "reside" and "residence" require a physical presence, how that presence is established is not so clearly defined in the homestead jurisprudence. The Florida Supreme Court decision in Semple explained that "[w]here it is clearly the manifest intention of the owner to occupy the premises immediately as a home, and this intention is evidenced by specific acts and doings that are not compatible with a different intention, and there is nothing done by the claimant showing a different intention, or that is inconsistent with the asserted intention to make the place his homestead, the homestead character will attach." The Baldwin court found this temporal requirement of immediacy missing in the Baldwins' situation because, although the Baldwins intended to use the property as their homestead, that intent was for some indeterminable point in the future as evidenced by the fact that the Baldwins did not "use or occupy the property until six months into the year." Baldwin, 279 So. 3d at 336. In the instant case, the evidence was credible and relevant to establish that Petitioners had purchased the property, set up utility service, and moved their household by late October. As of late December, they had clearly abandoned their California residence. All that remained was for the Petitioners to travel from their California hotel to their new Florida home. Consequently, Petitioners manifested an intent to occupy the premises immediately as a home and met the standards applied in both Baldwin and Semple. The overall weight of the credible and relevant evidence presented by the parties was sufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of proof, and to show that they are entitled to a homestead exemption. The Special Magistrate therefore recommends that the petition be granted. 2020-00003 Page 4 of 4 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00026 Page 1 of 1 Collier ✔ 2020-00026 22599700925 MARTHA TRELLES LOPEZ 4522 BATTLECREEK WAY NAPLES, FL 34142✔ ✔ 259,575.00 259,575.00 259,575.00 259,575.00 259,575.00 259,575.00 50,500.00 50,500.00 50,500.00 209,075.00 209,075.00 209,075.00 ✔ ✔ Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and has not indicated in her petition a desire to have her evidence presented in her absence. There is no good cause request pending. Pursuant to Rule 12D-9.021(8), and the petition is denied and this decision is being issued in order that any right Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/13/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00043 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00043 54751440004 JOSEPH ELMASRI 102 CURACAO LN NAPLES, FL 34134✔ ✔ 3,529,429.00 3,529,429.00 3,529,429.00 3,529,429.00 3,529,429.00 3,529,429.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 3,479,429.00 3,479,429.00 3,479,429.00 ✔ (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact: This is a petition challenging the removal of a 2018 and 2019 homestead exemption for a residence located at 102 Curacao Lane, Naples, Florida. The property is owned by Joseph and Donna Elmasri, who are the Petitioners in this appeal. Petitioners appeared and Joseph Elmasri presented his evidence consisting of a letter from Dr. Bemitez stating that Joseph Elmasri had a cerebral angiogram and embolization on January 14, 2018 and again on February 8, 2018, which prevented him from flying. The letter also indicated that Mr Elmasri was unable to fly for the month of April, 2018, due to another scheduled angiogram on March 23, 2018. This evidence was admitted without objection as P’s Exhibit No. 1. The Property Appraiser’s Office was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor for the Exemptions Department (“PAO”). All participants were sworn in. The PAO’s Request for Evidence was admitted as PAO’s Ex. 1. The PAO’s evidence package consisting of 23 pages was admitted as PAO’s Composite Exhibit 2. Petitioner objected to the admission of evidence by the PAO on grounds that he had met with Abe Skinner who told him the VAB appeal was “not adversarial.” Ms. Ybaceta was present during this meeting with Mr. Skinner but was unable to confirm that those exact words were used. Ms. Ybaceta recalled that Mr. Skinner informed Petitioner that the process was an informal one. The Special Magistrate overruled the objection as Petitioner was informed that he could present his information (“evidence”) and was prepared to do so. Moreover, as the issue was largely a legal one as to the validity of the appeal, Petitioner was not prejudiced by the admission of this information. Petitioners sought to have a video of a Fox News segment about adjacent property which had not been assessed for close to ten years. The video, however, was not admitted by the Special Magistrate on grounds that its contents lacked probative value and was cumulative to Mr. Elmasri’s testimony. The property had been granted a homestead exemption in 2014, after the Petitioner notified New Jersey authorities that they intended to make Florida their primary residence and their New Jersey homestead benefit was removed. (PAO Ex. 2, pp. 8-9) In 2018 the Homestead Receipt was returned to the PAO by the United States Postal Service with the notations “no such street, unable to forward.” (PAO Ex. 2, p. 13) No explanation as to why this notation was made was offered by either party, as the street clearly exists. As a result of the returned Receipt, a Homestead Questionnaire was mailed to the record address in March. This mailing was not returned. (Ybaceta) Having received no response from Petitioner, the PAO removed the homestead exemption and notified Petitioner by certified letter dated May 18, 2018. (PAO Ex. 2, p. 14) This notification was returned to the PAO with the notation “vacant, unable to forward.” (PAO Ex. 2, p. 15). Mr. Elmasri suffered a stroke while visiting in New Jersey in January of 2018 and was 2020-00043 Page 2 of 5 hospitalized for forty days. (Elmasri) As result he was unable to return to Florida. (Elmasri, P. Ex. 1). Petitioner did return in May of 2018 for a wedding but was unaware of any of the notices sent by the PAO. (Elmasri) The Notice of Proposed Taxes for 2018 and 2019 were both returned with the notations “vacant, unable to forward.” (PAO Ex. 2, pp. 16-17) The Homestead Exemption Receipt was also returned with the notation “Temporarily Away, Return to Sender.” Mr. Elmasri explained that most of his mail goes to his business address. Mr. Elmasri spent most of 2019 in his California home and returned to New Jersey to December, 2019; however, it was always his intent to maintain his permanent residence in Naples. (Elmasri) Sometime in late 2019, Petitioner called the PAO and questioned the removal of the exemption and was told he missed the date to appeal the homestead removal but should re-apply for 2020. (Elmasri) In early 2020, Petitioner applied for and received his homestead exemption for 2020. (PAO Ex. 2, p.18). Upon questioning by Ms. Ybaceta about his knowledge of the removal of the homestead exemption, Mr. Elmasri recanted his earlier testimony and stated that he was not aware that the exemption had been removed. The Special Magistrate finds the recantation by Mr. Elmasri not credible. Petitioner discovered that an adjacent residence in his neighborhood, which had been constructed by the developer, but had not received a Certificate of Completion, had avoided property tax assessment for close to ten years. He contacted the PAO to report this oversight. (Elmasri) This oversight amounted to close to a half a million dollar loss of uncollected property taxes, as estimated by Petitioner. Petitioner also reported the incident to Fox News, who produced and ran a story of the oversight. Elmasri argued that as a result of his disclosure of this error or possible fraud, the PAO was retaliating against him by removing his homestead exemption. (Elmasri) Conclusions of Law: Petitioners find themselves before the Special Magistrate in a challenge of the removal of an exemption in 2018 and again in 2019. Section 196.011(1), Fla. Stat., requires any applicant for homestead exemption to file by March 1. A failure to file by this date qualifies as a waiver of the exemption privilege for that year except when the applicant shows extenuating circumstances for the late filed application and/or files a petition with the value adjustment board requesting that the exemption be granted. Section 196.011, Fla Stat. As the PAO correctly argues, a petition to the Value Adjustment Board must be timely made, which requires that it be filed during the taxable year on or before the 25th day after the Notice of Proposed Taxes has been issued. Section 194.011(3)(d), Fla. Stat. The only exception is when the petitioner shows just cause for a late filing of the VAB petition. However, even a just cause showing will not extend the appeal period beyond the taxable year. 2020-00043 Page 3 of 5 It is clear under the statutes and case law applying such statutes that the PAO can remove an improperly granted homestead exemption and claw back the unpaid taxes for a ten year period. See Sections 196.061(1)(b) and 193.155(10), Fla. Stat.; see also Mitchell v. Higgs, 61 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)(finding that the ability of the Property Appraiser to retroactively collect back taxes is not unconstitutional). The taxpayer, however, does not enjoy a reciprocal ability to challenge an improper denial of a homestead exemption in past years. Rather, as the court stated in Higgs, the taxpayer has no remedy if he fails to file for homestead exemption in prior years after the 60 day deadline set forth in s. 194.171(2) and (6), Fla. Stat. See also Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277, 286 (Fla.2004). The PAO followed the law in providing Petitioners at their record address all notices to which they were entitled, including the Notice of Proposed Taxes, which clearly showed the removal of the exemption in 2018 and again in 2019. Although Mr. Elmasri's health crisis in 2018 may be sufficient justification for a late filed VAB petition or homestead application in that year, Section 194.171 requires that any challenge to an assessment, which includes any claims as to exemptions, must be filed within 60 days of a final decision by the Value Adjustment Board or the certification of the tax roll. This statute has been held to be a non-claim statute, and any claim made after that 60 day period is time barred. Consequently, the claims as to the 2018 and 2019 exemption removal are now and forever time-barred. As the Higgs court notes, although the homestead exemption is a constitutional entitlement, Art. VII, s. 6, of the Florida Constitution, expressly conditions this entitlement upon the establishment of this right in the manner prescribed by law. Higgs at p. 1156. Section 194.011, Fla. Stat., is such a law and requires application for the homestead exemption. Even assuming for argument’s sake that Petitioners were able to challenge the removal of the exemption in previous tax years, Petitioners did not make a timely application for those years. A successful application is necessary to obtain the exemption and the taxpayer who fails to apply in a timely manner cannot be heard to complain. Haddock v. Carmody, 1 So. 3d 1133, 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)(citing Horne v. Markham, 288 So. 2d 196, 199 (Fla. 1973)). Mr. Elmasri seems quite convinced that he was being retaliated against by the PAO by reason of his expose of the unassessed and uncollected taxes. However, even assuming that this were true, the VAB and the Special Magistrate have no ability to remedy such an act. The Special Magistrate’s jurisdiction is defined by s. 194.032(1)(a), Fla, Stat., and is limited to appeals from assessments, denials of exemptions, ad valorem tax deferrals and classifications, and determinations of change of ownership or control and the qualification of improvements. Petitioners had the burden in this proceeding to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s removal of homestead exemptions in 2018 and 2019 was wrong. All credible and relevant evidence admitted by the parties was considered, but any evidence which did not relate to the nature and timing of Petitioners’ challenge was given little weight due to the fact that Petitioners’ appeal was legally barred under s. 194.171, Fla. Stat. Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The overall weight of the credible 2020-00043 Page 4 of 5 and relevant evidence presented by Petitioners was insufficient to show that they were entitled to the relief sought in this proceeding. Rather, the evidence showed that Petitioners failed to timely apply for the homestead exemption in years 2018 and 2019, thereby waiving their right to the privilege during those years, and therefore no exemption could be granted. The evidence also showed that no VAB petition was filed in 2018 or 2019 to appeal the taxation of the property without this exemption. As a matter of law, the Special Magistrate cannot review the PAO’s removal of exemptions for these years where no petition has been timely filed and no legal challenge made within the statutorily mandated sixty days. There is no factual or legal basis that would support the retroactive granting of a homestead exemption for tax years 2018 or 2019. Therefore, this Special Magistrate recommends that the Petition be denied. 2020-00043 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00052 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00052 06231840004 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 375 YUCCA RD NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 3,868,834.00 3,868,834.00 3,230,000.00 3,368,834.00 3,368,834.00 2,730,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 3,318,834.00 3,318,834.00 2,680,000.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/04/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00052: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,868,834. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single and partial two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 4,065-sf and an adjusted building size of 6,141-sf. The adjusted size accounts the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .49 acres or 21,344-sf. The property is not located along a waterway. The property sold in June 2019 for $3,675,000. The property is located at 375 Yucca Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00052 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 37 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are a residual value, not including the improvements. The sales occurred from February 2019 to August 2019. The sales range in size from 16,988.4-sf to 22,215.6-sf and range in price from $65.86 to $94.49/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $73.50/sf or $1,600,190. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $20,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $2,502,792, the land value is estimated at $1,600,190 for a total cost of $4,122,982. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2019 to August 2019. The sales range in building size from 5,232-sf to 6,167-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 18,730.8-sf to 22,215.6-sf. The buildings were built from 2015 to 2019. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $598.00 to $723.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $671.00 and a median of $675.00. PAO reconciled a value at $630.00/sf of building area including land or $4,121,000 rounded. PET’s evidence was a 42-page report which consisted of a cover page, the property record card, settlement statement for the sale of the subject and a uniform residential appraisal report that contains 5 sales and 2 listings. The appraisal provides details of the subject property with photographs and provides the characteristic of the sales and listings with property, photos and location map of each comparable sale. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach and provided a land value of $1,200,000. All of PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided a sales chart with 4 sales and 2 listings, of properties in subject 2020-00052 Page 3 of 7 neighborhood. The sales and listings range in building size from 4,916-sf to 5,651-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 10,019-sf to 19,602-sf. The buildings are 2 to 4 years old. PET made adjustments to these sales for location, number of baths, garage size and building size. The adjusted sales range in value from $3,790,000 to $4,075,300 with the listings at $4,144,200 to $4,541,100. The appraisal estimates a value of $3,800,000 as of May 7, 2019. The appraisal indicates the contract price of the property at $3,750,000 and sold for $3,675,000. PET is requesting a downward adjustment of 15% cost of sales (COS) to the sale price of $3,675,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: 2020-00052 Page 4 of 7 (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the appraisal provided by PET was dated May 2019 and values have increased since that date to January 1, 2020. PAO indicated the appraisal provided by PET indicates the value of the property at $3,800,000 As rebuttal, PET indicated that no adjustment for the date of sale is required to the 2019 sale of the subject property. Pet indicated a reduction of 15% to the value of $3,800,000 is fair to the owner. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in May 2019 for $3,675,000. The appraisal provided by PET indicates a contract price of $3,750,000 and the value estimated from this appraisal is $3,800,000. SM has applied the cost of sales of 15% to the market value of $3,800,000 for an indicated value of $3,230,000. 2020-00052 Page 5 of 7 PET demonstrated that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00052: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. 2020-00052 Page 6 of 7 SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $3,230,000. 2020-00052 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00053 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00053 57660520009 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 1251 SPANISH CT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 848,308.00 848,308.00 743,750.00 848,308.00 848,308.00 743,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 848,308.00 848,308.00 743,750.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00053: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $848,308. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single and partial two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 1,817-sf and an adjusted building size of 2,797-sf. The adjusted size accounts the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .29 acres or 12,632-sf. The subject has 124.72 feet of frontage (FF). The property was built in 1987. The property is located on a waterway with access to the Gulf of Mexico, however has one bridge height limitation. The property sold in November 2019 for $875,000. The property is located at 1251 Spanish Court, Marco Island FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 2020-00053 Page 2 of 7 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 4 land sales in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are vacant land sales occurred from May 2019 to July 2019. The sales have a FF range of 80 to 103.36 and range in price from $4,474.00 to $6,001/FF. PAO reconciled the land value at $5,900.00/FF X 124.72FF X .92= $676,980. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated building cost is estimated at $280,333, the land value is estimated at $676,980 for a total cost of $957,313. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2019 to November 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,538-sf to 3,057-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 80FF to 124.72FF. The buildings were built from 1987 to 2010. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $313.00 to $394.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $360.00 and a median of $361.00. PAO reconciled a value at $360.00/sf of building area including land or $1,007,000 rounded. PET’s evidence was a 27-page report which consisted of a cover page, the property record card, 7 sale listing sheets with characteristic of the property, photos and location map of each comparable sale. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. All of PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated that the subject had originally been listed at $1,149,000 in November 2020-00053 Page 3 of 7 2018 and the price had been lowered in January, February and September, the asking price was lowered to $929,000 and eventually sold for $875,000. PET indicated the subject had ample exposure to the market. PET provided the listing sheets of 7 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. PET commented on the sale of the subject in November 2019 and indicated this sale was the best indicator of value for the subject. PET commented on two other sales with similar views as the subject; one at 551 Fieldstone Drive, Marco Island sold for $940,000 on November 15, 2019, The building has 2,766-sf, the lot size is .37 acres and was built in 2002, the property sold for $350.68/sf. The other sale is located at 1100 Lamplighter Court, Marco Island and sold for $811,000 on May 29, 2019, The building has 2,527-sf, the lot size is .34 acres and was built in 1995, the property sold for $320.93/sf. PET did not provide adjustments to these sales. PET estimated a value of $875,000, which is the sale price of the subject in November 2019, less 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of $743,750. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just 2020-00053 Page 4 of 7 value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that the majority of PET’s sales were not comparable to the subject and did not have a similar view. PAO had 6 sales that are assessed at 83% of value. As rebuttal, PET indicated that two of their sales had similar views to the subject and that the subject sale in November 2019 was the best indicator of value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in November 2019 and this sale is the best indicator of value. SM has applied the cost of 2020-00053 Page 5 of 7 sales of 15% to the sale price of $875,000 for an indicated value of $743,750. PET demonstrated that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00053: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. 2020-00053 Page 6 of 7 SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $743,750. 2020-00053 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00054 Page 1 of 9 Collier ✔ 2020-00054 12830200000 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 2777 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 13,737,764.00 12,541,144.00 12,541,144.00 12,313,281.00 12,313,281.00 12,313,281.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,313,281.00 12,313,281.00 12,313,281.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00054: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, were the agents for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. John MacDonald and Mr. Mike DeSalvo, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $12,541,144. The TRIM value has changed from $13,737,764. PAO described the property as a one-story Class C-good retail building, known as Clive Daniels Home furniture store. The building area as measured by PAO in October 2020 is 89,357-sf, which includes a finished mezzanine area. The land size is 195,890-sf or 4.497 acres. The building was built in 1967 and has been well maintained. The properties are located at 2777 9th Street, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00054 Page 2 of 9 PAO presented a report containing 95 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, subject exhibits, with interior and exterior photographs of the subject, zoning, aerials and site maps, regional and neighborhood market analysis, description of the site and improvements, market analysis, highest and best use analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. PAO provided general assumption and limiting conditions, the deed with the legal description, description sheets of each land and improved sales with photographs and the property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO indicated that the subject is located along route US-41 in Naples along a strip of busy commercial uses, with the Coastland Mall being just south of the subject. The traffic count at the subject is approximately 40,500 vehicles/day. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 8 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2019 to June 2020, with one sale in July 2014. The land sales range in size from 86,891-sf to 385,070-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 33,500 to 61,500 vehicles/day. The adjusted sales range from $10.95 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $32.19/sf and the median is $31.82/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $45.00/sf x 195,890-sf or $8,820,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $8,730,861, the land value is estimated at $8,820,000 for a total cost of $17,551,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 14 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from March 2013 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 18,991-sf to 123,522-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 2.68 acres to 12.305 acres with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 46%. The sale buildings were built from 1996 to 2016. The sales range from $80.00 to $488.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $206.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $202.00/sf of building area including land. PAO indicated Sales # 5 and 8 are located in North Naples and are similar in location; Sale # 10 is similar in size, but inferior in condition. PAO reconciled a value at $200.00/sf of building area including land or $17,871,000 rounded. 2020-00054 Page 3 of 9 PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market extracted market rents in Collier and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 18,991-sf to 123,522-sf; the land size is 2.11 to 12.305 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $6.39 to $25.60/sf with a mean of $15.03/sf and a median of $12.86/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, that range from 21,000 to 62,000-sf with a mean of 36,467-sf and a median of 31,000-sf; the rents range from $9.00 to $32.00/sf with a mean of $13.92/sf and a median of $12.50/sf on a modified gross basis, (where the owner pays most of the expenses). PAO estimated a Modified Gross rent of $20.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $1,787,140 PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.42% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $178,714. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 6 single tenant retail store and the operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $402,107. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,206,320.00 PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 9 sales of retail properties located in Collier and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.66% to 9.42% with a mean of 6.69% and a median of 6.6%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of office buildings in Naples, and the cap rate for these properties ranges from 6.25% to 7.70%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 4.64% to 8.58% with an average of 6.63%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 7.11%. PAO used a cap rate of 7.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.20%. The NOI of $1,206,320.00 capitalized at 8.20% indicates a value of $14,711,000 2020-00054 Page 4 of 9 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $12,541,144. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2020-00054 Page 5 of 9 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 55-page. The report consists a cover letter, a letter from Abe Skinner on from DR-493, the executive summary of the appraisal. PET included comparable rents with detail and photos of each rent, the Income Approach analysis; PET included the Sales Comparison Approach, with details of each sale, with photos and a summary sales chart with adjustments. PET included sketches of the subject, and a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET included Property Tax oversight Bulletin PTO 11-01 and PTO 09-27; Department of Revenue advisory memorandum dated 1/2015 on advisements to disregard alterations to certified Form DR-493; 2018 User’s Guide Department Property Tax Data Files and a section of the Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines. PET developed the Sales Comparison and the Income Approach. The Cost Approach was not developed. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET referred to pages 14,18,21 and 23 of their report which discussed the cost of sales at 15%. PET indicated that the Sales Comparison Approach supports the value derived from the Income Approach, and PET considerers the Income Approach most relevant. The Cost Approach was considered not relevant and was not included in their analysis. 2020-00054 Page 6 of 9 PET indicated the subject building was measured by an architect at 89,457-sf with a net area of 85,867-sf, and includes 71,007-sf of first floor space and 14,890-sf of mezzanine space. PET indicated that PAO included covered driveways/entry area in the gross square footage of the building, PAO indicated the building was measured in October 2019 and that the square footage does not include covered driveways and was measured at 89,357- sf. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 3 rental comparables of strip shopping centers. One rental is located on Tamiami Trail East, south of the subject and the other two rents are located in Bonita Springs, north of the subject. The rents range in size from 13,825-sf to 40,000-sf and were built from 1969 (and renovated) to 2002. The rents range from $9.00 to $12.00/sf triple net. PET estimated a rent of $10.00/sf triple net on a net area of 85,867-sf or $858,670. PET estimated a vacancy of 10% or $85,867. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $772,803. PET estimated the operating expenses at 8% of EGI or $61,800. The NOI is estimated at $711,003. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 6 sales of retail properties located in Collier and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 8.9% to 9.3% with an average of 9%. PET used a cap rate of 9.00%. The NOI of $711,003.00 capitalized at 9% indicates a value of $7,900,033 or $92.00/sf, less cost of sales at 15% of $1,185,005 indicated a value of $6,715,028. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of properties throughout the state of Florida. The sales occurred from February 2018 to October 2019. The sales range in building size from 79,300-sf to 215,796-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 5.3 acres to 23.9 acres with a land to building ratio ranging from 16% to 46%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 46%. The sale buildings were built from 1967 to 2018. The unadjusted sales range from $76.31 to $107.77/sf of building area including land. PET adjusted the sales for location, quality/appeal, age and building size. The adjusted sales range from $79.00 to $112.00/sf. PET indicated the sales support the value derived by the Income Approach at $92.00/sf as stated above. PET’s just value conclusion $6,715,028. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that single tenant buildings such as the subject are typically rented based on the gross square footage and not the net square footage. PAO used the gross area of 89,357-sf in their analysis. PET indicated that the building was measured in October 2019 and that the building actually measured 92,708-sf with 74,188-sf on the 2020-00054 Page 7 of 9 first floor and 18,520-sf on the mezzanine level and that this square footage will be used in next year’s valuation. The gross area of the building used in this analysis was the area on record. PAO indicated that PET’s improved sales are all located outside the market area with no sales located in Naples. PAO indicated that PET’s rents are located in inferior locations to the subject with lower tier shopping centers and indicate a lower rent than the subject location. PET’s cap rates are derived from sales mostly located outside Naples in inferior locations and indicate higher cap rates. As rebuttal PET indicated the subject was measured for the lease negotiated in 2011. PET indicated that some of their comparable sales were adjusted 20% for location. PET indicated that their cap rates were from local sales and were used based on the layout, design and function of the property and not the quality of construction. PET indicated that PAO’s rents are not similar in size and much smaller than the subject, thus indicating a higher rent. PET noted that some of PAO’s rents, from confidential sources, supports the $10.00/sf estimate for the subject. PET indicated that PAO’s cap rates derived from sales are from newer properties, where less risk is involved, therefore the cap rate should be higher for the subject, which is an older property. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is rom data gathered throughout the state of Florida with little support for the Naples market. PET’s rents are located in inferior locations, as compared to the subject, which is located on US-41 in a high retail area. PET’s rent is understated. PET’s cap rates are derived from sales, most of which are located in Fort Myers, in an inferior location and overstating a cap rate appropriate for the subject property and location. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00054: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. 2020-00054 Page 8 of 9 In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00054 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00056 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00056 16000800003 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 4217 CRAYTON RD NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 3,155,660.00 3,151,583.00 3,003,000.00 2,982,945.00 2,978,868.00 2,830,285.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 2,932,945.00 2,928,868.00 2,780,285.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/04/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00056: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,151,583. The TRIM value has changed from $3,155,660. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 3,874-sf and an adjusted building size of 4,573-sf. The adjusted size accounts the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .34 acres or 14,810.4-sf. The property was built in 1985. The property is located on a waterway with access to the Gulf of Mexico. The property sold in November 2019 for $3,300,000 The property is located at 4217 Crayton Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00056 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 40 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 3 land sales in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are vacant land sales occurred from April 2019 to June 2019. The sales range in size from 14,810.4-sf to 16,988.4-sf and range in price from $190.19 to $243.07/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $220.00/sf or $3,258,288. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $20,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $248,745, the land value is estimated at $3,258,288 for a total cost of $3,527,033. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2019 to November 2019. The sales range in building size from 4,250-sf to 6,104-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 14,810.4-sf to 24,829.2-sf. The buildings were built from 1985 to 2016. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $710.00 to $1,022/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $722/sf of building area including land or $3,302,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 28-page report which consisted of a cover page, the property record card, improved sales chart, sale listing sheets with characteristic of the property, photos and location map of each comparable sale as well as 3 additional sales in subject neighborhood. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. All of PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided a sales chart with 3 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales range in building size from 2,912-sf to 4,564-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 2020-00056 Page 3 of 7 .26 to .38 acres. The buildings were built from 2014 to 2017. PET made adjustments to these sales for water frontage and fixed bridge access. The adjusted sales range in value from $2,861,100 to $3,457,500. The additional sales provided by PET range in building size from 3,722-sf to 4,994-sf, the land size ranges from .25-.33 acres and were built from 2015 to 2016. PET did not provide adjustments to the 3 additional sales. PET estimated a value of $3,300,000, which is the sale price of the subject in November 2019, less 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of $2,805,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. 2020-00056 Page 4 of 7 (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that PET made a large adjustment for the fixed bridge. PAO indicated PET used sales outside the neighborhood when adequate sales were available, closer to the subject. PAO indicated that PAO’s sales 5 and 6 are in close proximity to the subject and were not used by PET. PAO indicated they spoke to the seller/realtor and the owner of the subject and were informed that the owner and buyer agreed on a price based on the condition of the seawall and the building and that no real estate commission was paid. As rebuttal, PET indicated that PAO’s sales # 5 and 6 are high priced properties and in better condition than the subject. PET indicated the property was for sale for over a year and that the owner and buyer agreed to the sale price. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in November 2019 and this sale is the best indicator of value. PAO indicated no real estate commission was paid. Real estate commissions are typically 6% in Naples; if 6% is deducted from the 15% cost of sales, the resulting 9% is the estimated cost of sales. SM has applied a cost of sales of 9% to the sale price of $3,300,000 for an indicated value of 2020-00056 Page 5 of 7 $3,003,000. PET demonstrated that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00056: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. 2020-00056 Page 6 of 7 SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $3,003,000. 2020-00056 Page 7 of 7 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00078 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00078 60410004869 SHAMBO, STEPHEN PAUL 1500 MOCKINGBIRD DR NAPLES, FL 34120✔ ✔ 598,099.00 598,099.00 598,099.00 598,099.00 598,099.00 598,099.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 598,099.00 548,099.00 548,099.00 ✔ (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact: Petitioners are Stephen and Cheryl Shambo, who own a residence at 1500 Mockingbird Dr., Naples, Florida. They are appealing the denial of a transfer of homestead assessment difference. Only Stephen Shambo appeared. The Property Appraiser was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor, of the Exemptions Department ("PAO"). The PAO representatives were sworn in earlier in the morning and were reminded that they were still under oath. Mr. Shambo was sworn. Petitioners offered a 7-page package as their evidence, which was admitted as P's Composite Exhibit 1 without objection. The PAO submitted their twelve page package of evidence which was admitted without objection as PAO Composite Ex. 1. Petitioners applied for a homestead exemption and the transfer of their Homestead Assessment Difference on August 18, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, pp.7-9) Petitioners are native Floridians and had lived in Broward County for 25 years before moving to Naples. (Shambo) Petitioner sold their Broward County home and closed on the sale on July 7, 2017. (P. Ex. 1, p. 7). Petitioners completed construction of their Naples residence and closed on the property on January 26, 2018. (P. Ex 1, p.6) The Request for transfer of the Homestead Assessment Difference (HAD) was denied after the Broward County Property Appraiser certified that Petitioner had no prior homestead within the previous two years, i.e., 2018 or 2019. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 10; Ybaceta) Petitioners did not notice that they weren't receiving a homestead exemption until they were talking to their neighbors sometime in 2020 and compared their tax bills. (Shambo) Petitioners admitted to receiving the notice of proposed taxes and tax bills and was unaware that they did not have their homestead exemption or that the Save Our Homes assessment savings had not transferred from their previous homestead to their new home. (Shambo) The 2019 tax bill stated an assessed value of $549,477. (P. Ex. 1, p.4) Conclusions of Law: The Florida Constitution provides that “every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner. . .shall be exempt from taxation thereon, except assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of twenty-five thousand dollars and, for all levies other than school district levies, on the assessed valuation greater than fifty thousand dollars and up to seventy-five thousand dollars.” Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. When determining whether the property owner is entitled to an exemption, the operative date is January 1. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. Section 196.031(1)(a) restates this requirement and provides that a “person who, on January 1, has the legal title . . . to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence. . . is entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . ..” It is undisputed that the subject property is Petitioners’ homestead, or that Petitioners enjoyed substantial Save Our Homes assessment savings from their Broward County home that was eligible for transfer to their new homestead. The issue in this appeal is whether Petitioners met the statutory requirements for such transfer. 2020-00078 Page 2 of 4 The statutory scheme behind the Save Our Homes (SOH) assessment cap and its transfer is set forth in Section 193.155. Section 193.155(3)(a), Fla. Stat., provides that homestead property will be assessed at just value as of January 1 of the year following a change of ownership. When Petitioners acquired their new home they were required to apply for a homestead exemption by March 1. Section 196.011, Fla. Stat. The exemption does not automatically transfer, as believed by Petitioners. Upon applying for the exemption, Petitioners could request to “port” their SOH savings to their new homestead. See s. 193.155, Fla. Stat. The law, however, requires that this request be made within a two year period. Specifically, section 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., states that property will be assessed at less than just value “when the person who establishes a new homestead has received a homestead exemption as of January 1 of either of the 2 immediately preceding years.” Because Petitioners waited until 2020 to apply for their new homestead exemption, they needed to show that they had enjoyed a homestead exemption as of January 1 of either of the two preceding years, 2018 and 2019. This they could not do because they sold their former homestead in 2017 and had no homestead exemption in 2018. (PAO Ex. 1, p.10) Because the subject property was not completed until sometime in January of 2018, Petitioners could not apply for their homestead exemption until 2019. However, had they done so, they would have been required to request the transfer of the Homestead Assessment Difference at that time and could have done so in compliance with the statute. Petitioners have the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s failure to transfer the Homestead Assessment Difference was wrong, and that Petitioner was entitled to the SOH savings acquired from their prior homestead property. Unfortunately, there were no facts of which Petitioners could avail themselves. There is no dispute that Petitioners did not enjoy a homestead exemption for 2018 and 2019 and did not apply for a homestead exemption until 2020. Although Petitioners clearly qualified for homestead once their new home was completed, that was not enough to entitle them to the exemption or the transfer. The Florida Supreme Court has held that in order to obtain the SOH savings, a homeowner must also make application for the homestead in accordance with the law, Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277, 286 (Fla. 2004), and, in this instance, request transfer the SOH savings. Section 194.155(8), clearly limits the time period for eligible transfer to the two preceding years. It should be noted that this very statute has been amended by the legislature to extend the time period to three years. However, this change must be approved by the voters and would not be effective until the 2021 tax roll. The evidence admitted in this case was relevant and credible and undisputed. Petitioners sold their former homestead in 2017 and did not apply for a new homestead exemption or the transfer of their SOH savings until 2020. A plain reading of the statute shows that Petitioners failed to meet the time limitations in s. 193.155(8), Fla. Stat. All credible and relevant evidence was insufficient to meet Petitioners’ burden in this case. The greater weight of the evidence supported the PAO’s decision to deny the transfer. Consequently, the overall weight of the evidence was insufficient to meet Petitioners’ burden of proof, 2020-00078 Page 3 of 4 and the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2020-00078 Page 4 of 4 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00082 Page 1 of 1 Collier ✔ 2020-00082 39964640001 JACQUES, JUAN F 3821 35THAVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120✔ ✔ 235,951.00 235,951.00 235,951.00 235,951.00 235,951.00 235,951.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 235,951.00 235,951.00 235,951.00 ✔ Petitioner did not appear and did not indicate on his Petition that he wished to have his evidence considered. In fact, Petitioner submitted no evidence. No good cause is pending. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 12D-9.021(6) and (8), Fla. Admin. Code, the petition is denied and this recommendation issued in order to preserve any right Petitioner may have to bring an action is circuit court. ✔ Ellen Chadwell 11/24/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/01/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00101 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00101 38844400003 SCOLA, MARCO, ROSA SCOLA NAPLES, FL 34120✔ ✔ 73,750.00 73,750.00 73,750.00 22,411.00 22,411.00 22,411.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,411.00 22,411.00 22,411.00 (See Attached) The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/30/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00101: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not submit evidence, and did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.C) SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $73,750. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2020-00101 Page 2 of 2 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00123 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00123 36384840002 PIERRE, FRANCOIS 2510 55THTER SW NAPLES, FL 34116✔ ✔ 254,201.00 254,201.00 254,201.00 219,969.00 219,969.00 219,969.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 219,969.00 219,969.00 219,969.00 ✔ Petitioner failed to appear and did not indicate on his petition that he wanted his evidence to be considered. In fact, no evidence was provided to the VAB Clerk in advance of the hearing. No good cause request was pending. (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Conclusions of Law: The Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied and this recommendation is given pursuant to Rule 12D-9.021(6) and (8), Fla. Admin. Code, in order that Petitioner's right to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00123 Page 2 of 2 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00137 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00137 23947002656 WAIDO, KATHLEEN M 6708 SLOANEPL NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 277,371.00 277,371.00 277,371.00 277,371.00 277,371.00 277,371.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 277,371.00 277,371.00 277,371.00 ✔ Petitioner did not submit evidence and did not appear at the hearing. Petitioner did not indicate on her petition that she would not appear and no good cause request was pending. (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Conclusions of Law: The Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied and this recommendation is given pursuant to Rule 12D-9.021(6) and (8), Fla. Admin. Code, in order that Petitioner's right to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00137 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00158 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00158 60204200442 TAX RECOURSE LLC 7485 VANDERBILT BEACHRD NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 1,260,303.00 1,260,303.00 1,260,303.00 1,260,303.00 1,260,303.00 1,260,303.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,260,303.00 1,260,303.00 1,260,303.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/30/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00158: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC, submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,260,303. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a former bank turned into a dental office; and is an outparcel in Mission Hill Shopping Center. The building is one story and contains 3,981- sf; built in 2006. The land size is 43,560-sf. The property is located at the northwest corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard at 7485 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00158 Page 2 of 8 PAO presented a report containing 112 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; impact fees; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $20.00/sf or $870,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $838,568, the land value is estimated at $870,000 for a total cost of $1,709,000 rounded. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 15 office sales in Naples. The sales occurred from May 2017 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 1,374-sf to 19,092-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,078-sf to 55,577- sf. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2007. The sales range from $196.00 to $546.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $305.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $254.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 9 sales of former bank branch buildings that sold in Collier and Lee counties. The sales occurred from July 2012 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,436-sf to 5,494-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 31,407- sf to 76,355-sf. The buildings were built from 2000 to 2013. The sales range from $223.00 to $491.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $345.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $354.00/sf of building 2020-00158 Page 3 of 8 area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $400.00/sf of building area including land or $1,592,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential office rent comparables, located in Naples. The buildings range in size from 800-sf to 39,010-sf with a mean of 10,825-sf and a median of 5,062-sf; the rents range from $15.07 to $48.53/sf with a mean of $27.53/sf and a median of $27.24/sf on a gross basis. PAO provided listings of office asking rents, located in Naples. The space ranges in size from 1,421-sf to 4,400-sf; the asking rents, on a triple net basis range from $15.00 to $32.00/sf with a mean rent of $22.38 and a median of $21.50/sf and a gross rent equivalent of $20.03 to $45.41/sf with a mean of $31.01 to $30.51/sf. PAO estimated a gross rent of $40.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $159,240. PAO provided vacancy support for office properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey, CoStar, for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 5.70% to 9.00% with a 3-yr average of 7.54% and an average for 2019 of 8.05%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $15,924. The effective gross income EGI is $143,316. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 16 properties located in Naples. The operating expense ratios, (expenses divided by EGI) and the expenses per square foot range from 8.5% (or $.95/sf) to 67.8% (or $12.75/sf) with a mean of 31.2% (or $6.96/sf) and a median of 29.9% (or $6.92/sf); the expenses do not include real estate taxes. PAO extracted the operating expenses of 16 office buildings in Naples. PAO deducted 10% from the asking rents and adjusted the operating expenses to include non- reimbursable expenses and exclude real estate taxes. PAO adjusted the common area maintenance (CAM) and ranges from $5.03 to $13.41/sf with a mean of $8.63 and a median of $8.84/sf. PAO added the CAM to the adjusted asking rent to provide a gross rent equivalent. PAO deducted 10% for vacancy, deducted landlord costs and real estate taxes. The operating expenses ratio and expenses/sf range from 21% (or $4.65/sf) to 40% (or $12.87/sf) with a median of 31% (or $8.01/sf) and a mean of 30% (or $8.13/sf). PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $35,829 or $9.00/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $107,487.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 13 sales of office and medical office buildings located in Naples and Collier county. The cap rates range from 6.23% to 8.55% with a mean of 7.13% and a median of 7.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for suburban office and medical properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC. 2020-00158 Page 4 of 8 The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.54% to 9.21% with an average of 7.12%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 7.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.20%. The NOI of $107,487 capitalized at 8.20% indicates a value of $1,311,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $1,260,303. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2020-00158 Page 5 of 8 market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 3,981-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $142.00 and added $4.26/sf for sprinklers, PET applied the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $518,760. PET depreciated the building by $124,502 for a depreciated cost of $394,257. PET added a land value of $609,840 for a total value of $1,004,097. 2020-00158 Page 6 of 8 As rebuttal, PAO indicated that medical office building build-out is more expensive, as additional electrical, water and gas is needed. PET did not indicate the class of building in their base cost, which is substantially lower than PAO’s estimated base cost. PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET did not provide support for the land value, which is lower than PAO’s estimate. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property, also PET did not provide support for the land value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00158: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. 2020-00158 Page 7 of 8 Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00158 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00160 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00160 25368000028 TAX RECOURSE LLC 12780 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 3,180,122.00 3,180,122.00 3,180,122.00 3,180,122.00 3,180,122.00 3,180,122.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,180,122.00 3,180,122.00 3,180,122.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00160: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,180,122. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building, occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 15,834-sf and the land size is 55,305.8-sf or 1.27 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 29%. The building was built in 1999. The property is located at the SW corner of Tamiami Trail E (US-41) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), a busy intersection. The property is located at 12780 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00160 Page 2 of 8 PAO presented a report containing 109 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. In addition, PAO provided a 7-page article called “Valuing the Leased Fee Simple Estate: The Answer for Ad Valorem Taxation Issues. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $35.00/sf or $1,940,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $2,182,491, the land value is estimated at $1,940,000 for a total cost of $4,122,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size 2020-00160 Page 3 of 8 from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $360.00/sf of building area including land or $5,700,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $30.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $475,020. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $23,751. The effective gross income EGI is $451,269. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $90,254 or $5.70/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $361,015.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group 2020-00160 Page 4 of 8 and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. The NOI of $361,015.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $5,014,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $3,180,122. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject 2020-00160 Page 5 of 8 utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 15,834-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $126.00 and added $3.28/sf for sprinklers, PET applied the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,686,703. PET depreciated the building by $539,745 for a depreciated cost of $1,146,958. PET added a land value of $1,783,612 for a total 2020-00160 Page 6 of 8 value of $2,930,570. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET did not provide support for the land value, PET used PAO’s` assessed land value. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property, also PET did not provide support for the land value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00160: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on 2020-00160 Page 7 of 8 the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00160 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00161 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00161 66263000027 TAX RECOURSE LLC 15295 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 3,041,221.00 3,041,221.00 3,041,221.00 2,788,554.00 2,788,554.00 2,788,554.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,788,554.00 2,788,554.00 2,788,554.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00161: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,041,221. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 14,066-sf and the land size is 66,211.2-sf or 1.52 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 22%. The building was built in 2002. The property is located at 15295 Collier Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 118 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00161 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $35.00/sf or $2,320,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $1,999,539, the land value is estimated at $2,320,000 for a total cost of $4,320,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a 2020-00161 Page 3 of 8 median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $360.00/sf of building area including land or $5,064.000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $30.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $421,980. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $21,099. The effective gross income EGI is $400,881. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $80,176 or $5.70/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $320,705.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. 2020-00161 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of $320,705.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $4,454,000.00 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $3,041,221. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; 2020-00161 Page 5 of 8 (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 14,066-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $151.00 and added $3.28/sf for sprinklers, PET applied the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,788,121. PET depreciated the building by $464,911 for a depreciated cost of $1,323,210. PET added a land value of $1,059,379 for a total value of $2,382,589. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET did not provide support for the 2020-00161 Page 6 of 8 land value when 4 sales occurred in subject neighborhood. PET used $16.00/sf for the land value and PAO provided sales that indicate a value of $35.00/sf. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property, also PET did not provide support for the land value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00161: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the 2020-00161 Page 7 of 8 burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00161 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00162 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00162 64370000022 TAX RECOURSE LLC 4290 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 2,351,644.00 2,351,644.00 2,351,644.00 2,262,975.00 2,262,975.00 2,262,975.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,262,975.00 2,262,975.00 2,262,975.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00162: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,351,644. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 14,720-sf and the land size is 155,870-sf or 2.66 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 13%. The building was built in 2001. The property is located at 4290 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 117 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00162 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $15.00/sf or $1,740,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $2,017,177, the land value is estimated at $1,740,000 for a total cost of $3,757,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a 2020-00162 Page 3 of 8 median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $300.00/sf of building area including land or $4,416,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $30.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $441,600. For the stabilized net operating income, PAO used a square footage of 14,066-sf in error, the size of the subject building is 14,720-sf. Special Magistrate (SM) made corrections to the stabilized net operating income. PAO’s capitalized NOI reflects the correct square footage number. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $22,080 (not $21,099). The effective gross income EGI is $419,520 (not $400,881). PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $83,904 or $5.70/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $335,616.00 (not $320,705) PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges 2020-00162 Page 4 of 8 from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. The NOI of $335,616.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $4,661,000.00 rounded PAO’s just value conclusion: $2,351,644. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00162 Page 5 of 8 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 14,720-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $126.00 added the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost 2020-00162 Page 6 of 8 multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,574,464. PET depreciated the building by $409,361 for a depreciated cost of $1,165,103. PET added a land value of $984,892 for a total value of $2,149,995. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET did not provide support for the land value. PET used $8.50/sf for the land value and the current assessed value for the land is at $10.00/sf. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property, also PET did not provide support for the land value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00162: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). 2020-00162 Page 7 of 8 PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00162 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00164 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00164 00236320004 TAX RECOURSE LLC 7985 AIRPORT RDN NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 4,997,906.00 4,550,939.00 4,550,939.00 4,873,220.00 4,550,939.00 4,550,939.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,873,220.00 4,550,939.00 4,550,939.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00164: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $4,550,939. The value has changed since the TRIM notice from $4,997,906. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 15,264-sf and the land size is 84,506-sf or 1.94 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 18%. The building was built in 2000. The property is located at 7985 Airport Pulling Road North, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 118 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00164 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $35.00/sf or $2,960,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $2,193,463, the land value is estimated at $2,960,000 for a total cost of $5,153,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a 2020-00164 Page 3 of 8 median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $350.00/sf of building area including land or $5,342,000.00 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $30.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $457,920. For the stabilized net operating income, PAO used a square footage of 14,066-sf in error, the size of the subject building is 15,264-sf. Special Magistrate (SM) made corrections to the stabilized net operating income. PAO’s capitalized NOI reflects the correct square footage number. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $22,896 (not $21,099). The effective gross income EGI is $435,024(not $400,881). PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $87,005 or $5.70/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $348,019.00 (not $320,705) PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges 2020-00164 Page 4 of 8 from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. The NOI of $348,019.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $4,834,000.00 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $4,550,939. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00164 Page 5 of 8 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 15,264-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $151.00 and added $3.28/sf for sprinklers, PET applied the story height, 2020-00164 Page 6 of 8 floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,940,415. PET depreciated the building by $82,125 for a depreciated cost of $1,358,291. PET added a land value of $2,598,560 for a total value of $3,956,851. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET did not provide support for the land value. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property, also PET did not provide support for the land value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00164: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). 2020-00164 Page 7 of 8 PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00164 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00165 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00165 81065000022 TAX RECOURSE LLC 1565 AIRPORT RDS NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 4,871,278.00 3,511,851.00 3,511,851.00 3,747,700.00 3,511,851.00 3,511,851.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,747,700.00 3,511,851.00 3,511,851.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00165: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,511,851. The value has changed since the TRIM notice from $4,871,278. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 15,930-sf and the land size is 86,248.8-sf or 1.98 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 18%. The building was built in 1999. The property is located at 1565 Airport Pulling Road South, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 116 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00165 Page 2 of 7 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $30.00/sf or $2,590,000.00 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $2,229,235, the land value is estimated at $2,590,000 for a total cost of $4,819,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a 2020-00165 Page 3 of 7 median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $330.00/sf of building area including land or $5,257,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $30.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $477,900. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $23,895. The effective gross income EGI is $454,005. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $90,801 or $5.70/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $363,204.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. 2020-00165 Page 4 of 7 The NOI of $363,204.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $5,045,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $3,511,851. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2020-00165 Page 5 of 7 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 15,930-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $126.00 and added for the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,696,929. PET depreciated the building by $534,017 for a depreciated cost of $1,153,912. PET added a land value of $2,966,959 for a total value of $4,120,871. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET value at $4,120,871 supports PAO’s just value of $3,511,851. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. 2020-00165 Page 6 of 7 SM reviewed the evidence PET’s value is higher than the just value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00165: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value exceeds just value. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00165 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00166 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00166 00084040002 TAX RECOURSE LLC 1450 IMMOKALEE DR IMMOKALEE, FL 34142✔ ✔ 1,853,563.00 1,853,563.00 1,853,563.00 1,845,568.00 1,845,568.00 1,845,568.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,845,568.00 1,845,568.00 1,845,568.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00166: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,853,563. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 15,048-sf and the land size is 100,988-sf or 2.32 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 15%. The building was built in 2000. The property is located at 1450 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 121 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00166 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $10.00/sf or $1,010,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $1,979,293, the land value is estimated at $1,010,000 for a total cost of $2,989,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a 2020-00166 Page 3 of 8 median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $275.00/sf of building area including land or $4,138,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $25.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $376,200. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $18,810. The effective gross income EGI is $357,390. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $71,478 or $4.75/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $285,912. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. 2020-00166 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of $285,912.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $3,971,000.00 rounded PAO’s just value conclusion: $1,853,563. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; 2020-00166 Page 5 of 8 (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 15,048-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $126.00 added $3.28 for sprinklers and added the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,602,975. PET depreciated the building by $480,893 for a depreciated cost of $1,122,083. PET added a land value of $513,022 for a total value of $1,635,105. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET did not provide support for the land value; PET used current assessed value for the land. 2020-00166 Page 6 of 8 PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property, also PET did not provide support for the land value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00166: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on 2020-00166 Page 7 of 8 appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00166 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00170 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00170 56807880008 TAX RECOURSE LLC 1800 SAN MARCO RD MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 2,531,603.00 2,531,603.00 2,531,603.00 2,531,603.00 2,531,603.00 2,531,603.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,531,603.00 2,531,603.00 2,531,603.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00170: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC, submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,531,603. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. The subject building was built on two lots (two separate parcel numbers), PET has petitioned a hearing for one parcel only, under petition number 2020-00170, for the land and building; the access to the building is from the adjacent land parcel not included in PET’s evidence. PAO has included the two parcels in their analysis, as the parcels cannot be separated since the building is on both parcels. PAO provided a value for the two parcels at $3,076,882. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 17,145-sf; the land size is 55,794-sf for the building and land and 27,264-sf for the land parcel only, for a total land size of 83,058-sf or 1.907 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 21%. The building was built in 1999. The property is located at 1800 San Marco Road, Marco Island FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a 2020-00170 Page 2 of 8 stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 121 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $25.00/sf x 83,058-sf = $2,080,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $2,310,266, the land value is estimated at $2,080,000 for a total cost of $4,390,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. 2020-00170 Page 3 of 8 PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $300.00/sf of building area including land or $5,144,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $30.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $514,350. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $25,718. The effective gross income EGI is $488,633. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $97,727 or $5.70/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $390,906. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges 2020-00170 Page 4 of 8 from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. The NOI of $390,906.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $5,429,000.00 rounded PAO’s just value conclusion: $3,076,882 for both parcels. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00170 Page 5 of 8 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 17,145-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $126.00 added $3.28 for sprinklers and added the story height, floor area 2020-00170 Page 6 of 8 perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,826,356. PET depreciated the building by $620,961 for a depreciated cost of $1,205,395. PET added a land value of $1,205,149 for a total value of $2,410,544. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET provided the land value for a portion of the site (one parcel only) and did not provide support for the land value. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property. PET was remiss in did not including a parcel, on which a portion of the building exists; and this parcel provides access to the building. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00170: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). 2020-00170 Page 7 of 8 PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00170 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00172 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00172 21961000254 TAX RECOURSE LLC 2511 PINE RIDGERD NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 3,818,054.00 3,818,054.00 3,818,054.00 3,774,180.00 3,774,180.00 3,774,180.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,774,180.00 3,774,180.00 3,774,180.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00172: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC, submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,818,054. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 14,389-sf and the land size is 84,070-sf or 1.93 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 17%. The building was built in 2015. The property is located at 2511 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 125 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00172 Page 2 of 8 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $30.00/sf or $2,520,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $2,732,097, the land value is estimated at $2,520,000 for a total cost of $5,252,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a 2020-00172 Page 3 of 8 median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $400.00/sf of building area including land or $5,756,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $38.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $546,782. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $27,339. The effective gross income EGI is $519,443. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $103,889 or $7.22/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $415,554. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. 2020-00172 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of $415,554.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $5,772,000.00 rounded PAO’s just value conclusion: $3,818,054. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; 2020-00172 Page 5 of 8 (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 14,389-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $126.00 added $3.28 for sprinklers and added the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,532,776. PET depreciated the building by $76,639 for a depreciated cost of $1,456,137. PET added a land value of $1,949,307 for a total value of $3,405,444. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET did not include site improvements, impact fees and entrepreneurial profit in their cost analysis. Also, PET did not provide support for the land value; PET used current assessed value for the land. 2020-00172 Page 6 of 8 PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s Cost Approach is insufficient, it does not include typical costs associated with development of the property, also PET did not provide support for the land value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00172: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on 2020-00172 Page 7 of 8 appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00172 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00173 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00173 11280040002 TAX RECOURSE LLC 2200 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 6,066,512.00 5,224,898.00 5,224,898.00 4,923,941.00 4,923,941.00 4,923,941.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,923,941.00 4,923,941.00 4,923,941.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/29/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/02/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00173: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Ms. Sophia Rothermel, from Tax Recourse LLC submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $5,224,898. The value has changed since the TRIM notice from $6,066,512. PAO described the property as a freestanding, one story, single occupant building occupied by Walgreen pharmacies. The building contains 16,414-sf and the land size is 92,922-sf or 2.13 acres. The floor area ratio (FAR) is 18%. The building was built in 2009. The property is located at 2200 9th Street North, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 126 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00173 Page 2 of 7 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 20 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from January 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 90,186-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 14,400 to 49,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $13.92 to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.92/sf and the median is $28.66/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $50.00/sf or $4,650,000.00 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $2,795,965, the land value is estimated at $4,650,000 for a total cost of $7,446,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of pharmacies in Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The sales occurred from March 2016 to February 2019. The sales range in building size from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 52,662-sf to 86,249-sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 14% to 28%. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2015. The sales range from $259.00 to $737.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $439.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $418.00/sf of building area including land. PAO included 11 sales of freestanding commercial properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from January 2015 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,342-sf to 12,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,700-sf to 59,286- sf; with a land to building ratio ranging from 11% to 30%. The buildings were built from 1967 to 2005. The sales range from $131.00 to $636.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $276.00/sf of building area including land and a 2020-00173 Page 3 of 7 median price of $230.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $400.00/sf of building area including land or $6,566,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market rents, of pharmacies, located in Collier, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The building sizes range from 10,862-sf to 17,208-sf; the land size is 1.21 to 1.98 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The rents range from $18.58 to $37.89/sf with a mean of $25.69/sf and a median of $24.65/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO estimated a triple net rent of $38.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $623,732. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $31,187. The effective gross income EGI is $592,545. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 5 single tenant retail stores and one multi-tenant building. The operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes (multi-tenant properties have higher expenses). PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $118,509 or $7.22/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $474,036. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Sarasota and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.81% to 6.50% with a mean of 5.88% and a median of 6.02%. PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of retail stores, restaurants and small retail strip centers, in Collier County; the cap rate for these properties ranges from 5.00% to 7.62%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 6.19% to 6.30% with an average of 6.24%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. 2020-00173 Page 4 of 7 The NOI of $474,036.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $6,584,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $5,224,898. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2020-00173 Page 5 of 7 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 3 pages, 2 of which is an email from Ms. Rothermel to the VAB, listing the petitions to be heard at the hearings. The third page is a summary of the Cost Approach for the subject property. PET developed the Cost Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Cost Approach, using Marshall and Swift cost manual, and using the calculator method. PET used 16,414-sf for the building size. PET applied a base square foot cost of $126.00 and added for the story height, floor area perimeter, current and local cost multipliers. The total improvement replacement cost is estimated at $1,742,567. PET depreciated the building by $209,108 for a depreciated cost of $1,533,459. PET added a land value of $3,716,880 for a total value of $5,250,339. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that PET’s value at $5,250,339 supports PAO’s just value of $5,224,898. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. 2020-00173 Page 6 of 7 SM reviewed the evidence PET’s value is higher than the just value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00173: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value exceeds just value. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00173 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00177 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00177 53200000323 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 2100 L AMBIANCECIR NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 758,225.00 758,225.00 758,225.00 758,225.00 758,225.00 758,225.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 758,225.00 758,225.00 758,225.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00177: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Donald Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $758,225. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium. The unit is located on the second floor of a 2-story building and has a lake view. The unit has an area of 2,579-sf. The property was built in 1995. The property is located in the Pelican Bay neighborhood at 2100 L’Ambiance Circle # 202, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 39 pages. The report included photographs of the subject, the evidence and witness list, trim notice for the property and warranty deed. 2020-00177 Page 2 of 6 PAO provided comparable sales in chart form, an aerial and site map of Pelican Bay Community, community website information, with photos, subject floor plan, MLS listing for the subject with interior and exterior photos, listing sheets for the comparable sales with aerials and photos with a location map. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 10 condominium sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2019 to March 2020. The sales range in building size from 1,869-sf to 2,784-sf. The buildings were built from 1994 to 1999. PAO made no adjustments. The sales range from $338.00 to $486.00/sf of unit area. PAO reconciled a value at $294.00/sf of unit area or $758,225. PET’s evidence consisted of a 11-page report which consisted of a cover letter, DR-493 form, property record card and the settlement statement for the sale of the subject. PET provided three sales in chart form. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 3 sales of properties in subject neighborhood, including the sale of the subject and the sale of 2 condominium units located on the second floor, in buildings on L’Ambiance Circle. PET’s sales sold from March 2020 to April 2020; all have a unit size of 2,579-sf, similar to the subject. The buildings were built in 1995. The units sold from $263.00 to $287.00.sf with the subject having sold at $301.00/sf. PET made not adjustments to the sales. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), 2020-00177 Page 3 of 6 F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment 2020-00177 Page 4 of 6 was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that all of PET’s sales occurred in the year 2020 after the appraisal date of January 1, 2020 and the sales are not relevant to this tax assessment. PAO indicated there were an adequate number of sales in the year 2019 to arrive at a value for the subject, and there is no need to look at sales that occurred in the year 2020. As rebuttal, PET indicated that sales in the first quarter of 2020 are acceptable. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate comparable sales in the neighborhood, that occurred in the year 2019. PET’s sales were from the year 2020, outside the appraisal date. Per Florida Statute 192.042, (All property shall be assessed according to its just value as of January 1 of each year.) PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00177: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). 2020-00177 Page 5 of 6 PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00177 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00178 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00178 76925012563 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 2136 TORINOWAY NAPLES, FL 34105✔ ✔ 1,355,453.00 1,355,453.00 1,355,453.00 1,355,453.00 1,355,453.00 1,355,453.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 1,305,453.00 1,305,453.00 1,305,453.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00178: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,355,453. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 3,786-sf and an adjusted building size of 4,298-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .24 acres. The property was built in 2016. The property sold in March 2019 for $1,425,000. The property is located at 2136 Torino Way, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00178 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, the sales history for the subject and listing sheet with details of the subject with interior and photos. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 residual and sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are residual land sales are all in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2019 to December 2019. The sales have a front footage (FF) range of 62.86 FF to 123.00 FF; the subject has 123.00FF. The price/FF ranges from $2,032.00 to $20,588.00/FF. PAO reconciled the land value at $2,100/FFx.80x123FF= $206,640. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $20,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,225,073, the land value is estimated at $206,640.00 for a total cost of $1,451,713. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 improved sales in the neighborhood, including the subject. The sales occurred from January 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 3,778-sf to 4,636-sf; the land size for these sales have a FF ranges from 62.86 FF to 123.00 FF. The buildings were built from 2007 to 2016. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $308.00 to $541.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $397.00/sf and a median of $399.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $399.00/sf of building area including land or $1,715,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 31-page report which included of a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, improved sales with characteristic of each property, with photos and location map of each comparable sale. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal- response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. 2020-00178 Page 3 of 7 All of PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided a sales chart with 7 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales sold from March 2019 (sale of the subject) to September 2020, with only one sale in the year 2019 other than the subject. The sales range in building size from 3,032-sf to 3,954- sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .17 to .26 acres. The buildings were built from 2007 to 2016. The sales range from $290.8/sf4 to $427.11/sf. PET did not provide adjustments to the sales. PET indicated the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: 2020-00178 Page 4 of 7 (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that 5 of the 7 sales presented, by PET, sold in the year 2020, after the date of appraisal of 1/1/2020. PAO indicated appreciation has occurred since the sale of the subject in March 2019 to the date of appraisal of 1/1/20. PAO indicated there were 27 sales that occurred in the year 2019, in the area of the subject, and there is no need to go to 2020 sales. As rebuttal, PET indicated that the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. PET indicated that some of PAO’s sales are not comparable and within the price range of the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in March 2019, and there has been appreciation since the date of sale, as mentioned by PAO. PET provided one sale, other than the subject that sold in 2019; and made no adjustments to the sales for building size, land size and amenities as compared to the subject. Per 2020-00178 Page 5 of 7 Florida Statute 192.042, (All property shall be assessed according to its just value as of January 1 of each year.) PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00178: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. 2020-00178 Page 6 of 7 In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00178 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00179 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00179 63045039167 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 14612 REGATTA LN NAPLES, FL 34114✔ ✔ 580,199.00 580,199.00 580,199.00 549,127.00 549,127.00 549,127.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 549,127.00 549,127.00 549,127.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00179: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $580,199. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,621-sf and an adjusted building size of 3,278-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .25 acres. The property was built in 2018. The property sold in November 2018 for $441,700. The property is located at 14612 Regatta Lane, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00179 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 34 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary of the building, with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, 6 of which are residual land sales, and one vacant land sale, are all in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2019 to December 2019. The sales have a front footage (FF) range of 72.86 FF to 97.58 FF; the subject has 85.82 FF. The price/FF ranges from $459.00 to $2,808.00/FF. PAO reconciled the land value at $1,050/FFx.95x85.82FF= $85,605. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $10,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $528,836, the land value is estimated at $85,605.00 for a total cost of $624,441. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 3,299-sf to 3,960-sf; the land size for these sales have a FF ranges from 72.86 FF to 97.58 FF. The buildings were built from 2016 to 2019. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $173.00 to $220.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $205.00/sf and a median of $209.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $201.00/sf of building area including land or $659,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 9-page report which included a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, and an improved sales chart. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00179 Page 3 of 7 PET provided a sales chart with 10 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales sold from September 2019 to March 2020. The sales range in building size from 2,216-sf to 2,838-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 6,970-sf to 10,019-sf. The buildings were built from 2016 to 2019. The sales range from $173.00/sf to $229.00/sf of building area. PET did not provide adjustments to the sales. PET reconciled a value at $202.00/sf less 15% cost of sales or $172.00/sf for a value of $450,000 rounded. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use 2020-00179 Page 4 of 7 of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the property sold 13 months prior to the date of appraisal of 1/1/20. PET used sales that occurred in the year 2020 when adequate sales occurred in 2019. PAO indicated that some of PET’s sale had pools and some had not, PET made do adjustments to the sales for pool, building size or land size. PAO indicated the property sold without a pool and the owner added the pool and pool cage after the sale, and the value of the pool is reflected in PAO’s value estimate. PET did not consider the value of the pool in their estimate of value. As rebuttal, PET indicated that the sales used in their analysis are within the price range of the subject. PET indicated if the pool was added to the purchase price, the value is still at $450,000. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in November 2018 and there has been some appreciation since the date of sale. PET provided five sale 2020. Per Florida Statute 192.042, (All property shall be assessed according to its just value as of January 1 of each year.) PET made no adjustments to the sales for building size, land size and amenities. The homes in this community, including the sales used by PET and PAO, were all built by the same builder and the interior finish 2020-00179 Page 5 of 7 varies with each property, which affects the sale price. PET did not take into consideration the appreciation in value of the subject and the addition of the pool, spa and pool cage. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00179: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. 2020-00179 Page 6 of 7 In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00179 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00180 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00180 47780004965 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 9286 PLOVERDR NAPLES, FL 34120✔ ✔ 718,572.00 718,572.00 718,572.00 718,572.00 718,572.00 718,572.00 50,500.00 50,500.00 50,500.00 668,072.00 668,072.00 668,072.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00180: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $718,572. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,496-sf and an adjusted building size of 3,061-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .32 acres. The property was built in 2019. The property sold in May 2019 for $637,600. Since the closing of the sale, the owner added a pool, spa and pool enclosure, which was completed before January 1,2020, at a permit cost of $87,497 for a total of $725,097. The property is located at 9286 Plover Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 2020-00180 Page 2 of 7 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 34 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 residual land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary of the building, with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are residual land sales, all in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2019 to November 2019. The sales have a front footage (FF) range of 67.2 FF to 83.69 FF; the subject has 115.60 FF. The price/FF ranges from $1,449.00 to $2,777.00/FF. PAO reconciled the land value at $2,200/FFx.96x115.60FF= $244,147. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $15,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $495,510, the land value is estimated at $244,147 for a total cost of $754,657. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2019 to November 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,982-sf to 3,531-sf; the land size for these sales have a FF range from 67.2 FF to 83.69 FF. The buildings were all built in 2019. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $247.00 to $280.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $265.00/sf and a median of $268.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $265.00/sf of building area including land or $811,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 9-page report which included of a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, and an improved sales chart. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET included 7 pages which indicate the base price paid for the subject and the cost of all the upgrades made to the subject. 2020-00180 Page 3 of 7 PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided a sales chart with 12 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales sold from August 2019 to August 2020. The sales range in building size from 1,793-sf to 2,496-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .17 acres to .38 acres-sf. The buildings were all built in 2019. The sales range from $254.00 to $316.00/sf of building area. PET did not provide adjustments to the sales. PET indicated the best indication of value is the sale of the subject at $637,600 less cost of sales of 15%= $541,960. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2020-00180 Page 4 of 7 market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that PET used sales that occurred in the year 2020, when adequate sales occurred in 2019 in the subject neighborhood. PAO indicated that the properties in this area sell at a base price and upgrades are added. PAO indicated PET did not make any adjustments to the sales for upgrades or pool and pool cage. PAO indicated that on PET’s cost and upgrades for the subject there is a deduction of $40,000 for price adjustment and sales program. PAO indicated these incentives are negotiated depending on the time of year, and the lag in sales. If the $40,000 discount and the cost of the pool, of $87,497, are added to the sale price of $637,600, the total market value of the property is $765,097.00 As rebuttal, PET indicated they did not agree with adding the $40,000 incentive to the sale price of the subject. These are all custom homes and the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in May 2019 and a pool, spa and pool cage were added and completed before January 1, 2020. 2020-00180 Page 5 of 7 There has been some appreciation since the date of sale. PET provided some sales in the year 2020; Per Florida Statute 192.042, (All property shall be assessed according to its just value as of January 1 of each year.) PET made no adjustments to the sales for building size, land size and amenities. The homes in this community, including the sales used by PET and PAO, were all built by the same builder and the interior finish varies with each property, which affects the sale price. PET did not take into consideration the appreciation in value of the subject and the addition of the pool, spa and pool cage. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00180: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and 2020-00180 Page 6 of 7 the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00180 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00182 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00182 06284840006 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 1582 CRAYTON RD NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 3,654,179.00 3,654,179.00 3,654,179.00 3,654,179.00 3,654,179.00 3,654,179.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,654,179.00 3,654,179.00 3,654,179.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00182: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,654,179. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 4,961-sf and an adjusted building size of 5,939-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .45 acres or 19,602-sf. The property was built in 2015. The property sold in February 2019 for $3,850,000. The property is located at 1582 Crayton Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00182 Page 2 of 6 PAO presented a report containing 40 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, the sales history for the subject and listing sheet with details of the subject with interior and photos. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 residual land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The sales occurred from February 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in area from 15,246-sf to 19,602-sf; the subject has 19,602-sf. The price/ sf ranges from $65.86.00 to $133.49/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $73.50/sf or $1,483,969. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $25,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $2,399,651, the land value is estimated at $1,483,969 for a total cost of $3,908,620. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood, including the sale of the subject. The sales occurred from February 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 4,561-sf to 6,167-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 15,246-sf to 19,602-sf. The buildings were built from 2015 to 2019. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $621.00 to $818.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $706.00/sf and a median of $675.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $675.00/sf of building area including land or $4,009,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of an 11-page report which includes a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, and improved sales details for each sale with characteristics of the property with a photo. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal- response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00182 Page 3 of 6 PET provided 11 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales sold from October 2018 to January 2020. The sales range in building size from 4,190-sf to 5,651- sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .31 to .51 acres. The buildings were built from 2006 to 2019. The sale price/sf ranges from $655.55 to $922.64. PET did not provide adjustments to the sales. PET indicated the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value adjusted for cost of sales is $3,300,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use 2020-00182 Page 4 of 6 of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the subject sold in February 2019 and appreciation has occurred since the sale of the subject to the date of appraisal of 1/1/20. PAO indicated that the properties in this neighborhood are all unique, having different sizes and amenities and finishes; PET did not make any adjustments to the comparable sales. PAO indicated the owner paid cash for the property and the cost of sales should be reduced by the sales commission. When adding the increase in value from the time of sale and reducing the cost of sales the just value is supported. As rebuttal, PET indicated that the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in February 2019 and there has been some appreciation since the date of sale, as mentioned by PAO. PET did not make any adjustments to the comparable sales for differences in the properties and PET’s value is understated. The cost of sale can be a reduction of up to 15% of the sale price; with the increase in the property’s value, from the date of sale, the just value is supported. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or 2020-00182 Page 5 of 6 more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00182: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00182 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00183 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00183 01881560001 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 567 21STAVE S NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 4,683,539.00 4,683,539.00 4,683,539.00 4,683,539.00 4,683,539.00 4,683,539.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,683,539.00 4,683,539.00 4,683,539.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00183: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $4,683,539 The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 3,383-sf and an adjusted building size of 4,665-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .32 acres or 13,939.2-sf. The property was built in 1999 with an effective age of 2015. This is a waterfront property located on a canal. The property sold in March 2019 for $4,725,000; the owners re-roofed and remodeled the house after purchase. The property is located at 567 21st Avenue South, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 2020-00183 Page 2 of 7 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 44 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, the sales history for the subject and listing sheet with details of the subject with interior photos. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 2 land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The waterfront land sales occurred in September 2019. The sales range in area from 12,196.8-sf to 15,246-sf; the subject has 13,939.2-sf. The price/sf ranges from $239.41 to $266.46/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $239.00/sf or $3,331,469. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $35,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,700,550, the land value is estimated at $3,331,469 for a total cost of $5,067,019. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 improved sales in the neighborhood, including the subject. The sales occurred from January 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 4,665-sf to 6,756-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 13,503.6-sf to 16,177.2-sf. The buildings were built from 1999 to 2018. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $871.00 to $1,423.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $1,121.00/sf and a median of $1,100.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1,100.00/sf of building area including land or $5,132,000.00 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of an 46-page report which included a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, 3 improved sales in chart form and details for each sale with characteristics of the property with a photo. PET included 7 additional sales with details for each sale with characteristics of the property with a photo. PET included the listing sheet for the subject and all the sales. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal- response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. 2020-00183 Page 3 of 7 PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 11 sales of properties in subject neighborhood, including the sale of the subject. PET chose the 3 best comparable sales and made adjustments to the sales. These 3 sales, sold from January 2019 to July 2019; The sales range in building size from 3,909-sf to 4,786-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .30 to .37 acres; the buildings were built from 1978 to 2005. PET made adjustments for the number of bathrooms, year built and building size. The adjusted sales range from $3,909,500 to $4,111,000.00 or $858.96 to $1,000/sf. PET indicates that 9 of the 11 sales sold for under $1,000/sf, averaging $900/sf. PET indicated the owner overpaid for the property at $4,750,000 and this value is not supported. PET has estimated a value of $4,000,000 for the subject before the -15% cost of sales for an estimated value of $3,400,000.00 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00183 Page 4 of 7 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the property was listed for $5,200,000 in December 2018 and sold, March 2019 for $4,725,000. The buyer purchased the property and remodeled the house, and the remodel was complete as of 1/1/20, the date of appraisal. PAO is providing a value for the remodeled property. PAO indicated that PET’s sales are located north of the subject and that PAO’s sales are closer to the subject. As rebuttal, PET indicated that PET’s sales are similar in location to the subject and are the best indicator of value. PET indicated that PAO used an $8,075,000 sale, almost twice the value of the subject. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in March 2019 and was remodeled as of January 1, 2020 and indicates an effective age of 2015. 2020-00183 Page 5 of 7 PET’s sales are older buildings, located north of the subject. PET did not consider the value of the remodel of the subject. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00183: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. 2020-00183 Page 6 of 7 In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00183 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00184 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00184 57934360005 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 712 PLANTATIONCT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 677,600.00 677,600.00 437,800.00 677,600.00 677,600.00 437,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 677,600.00 677,600.00 437,800.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00184: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $677,600. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a vacant waterfront land parcel in a residential neighborhood. The land size is .25 acres with 100.00ft of water frontage. The subject is located on the Marco River and in a flood zone. The property sold in November 2019 for $515,000.00. The property is located at 712 Plantation Court, Marco Island FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 33 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, 2020-00184 Page 2 of 6 limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 vacant land sales. All sales are waterfront land sales. The sales occurred from March 2019 to January 2020. The sales range in waterfront footage from 100 ft to 111.74 ft., the subject has 100.00 ft. The sales range from $5,150/FF to $10,150/FF; with an mean of $8,191/FF and a median of $8,596/FF. PAO reconciled a value at $8,500/FF x 100.00FF = $850,000. PET’s evidence was a 13-page report which consisted of a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, an email from the owner to the agent, closing statement for the sale of the subject in November 2019, property details and a comparable land sales chart. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 11 vacant land sales on Marco Island. All sales are waterfront land sales. The sales occurred from August 2019 to September 2020. The sales range in size from 8,712-sf to 15,682-sf, the subject has 10,890-sf. The sales range from $26.00/sf to $47.00/sf. PET indicated the property was listed in October 2018 for $675,000, the price was reduced to $620,000 in February 2019; in September the property was re-listed at $575,000 and sold in November 2019. PET indicated the subject is the best indicator of value at $515,000 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $437,750. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be 2020-00184 Page 3 of 6 admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. 2020-00184 Page 4 of 6 Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the qualified sales presented have a market value to just value of 84.8% and the cost of sales has been applied. PAO supports their value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in November 2019, two months prior to the date of value of 1/1/20; the property had been on the market a reasonable period of time and the price had been reduced. The sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. SM has applied a cost of sales of -15% to the sale price of $515,000 for an indicated value of $437,750 rounded to $437,800. PET demonstrated that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00184: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any 2020-00184 Page 5 of 6 applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $437,800. 2020-00184 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00185 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00185 18362120005 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 2223 SNOOK DR NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 2,838,649.00 2,838,649.00 2,685,800.00 2,249,691.00 2,249,691.00 2,249,691.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,249,691.00 2,249,691.00 2,249,691.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/19/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00185: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,838,649. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a three-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,929-sf and an adjusted building size of 6,100-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .24 acres or 10,454-sf. The property was built in 2002 with an effective age of 2015. This is a waterfront property on a canal. The property sold in April 2020 for $2,950,000. The property is located at 2223 Snook Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00185 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 42 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, the sales history for the subject and listing sheet with details of the subject with interior and photos. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 4 land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from March 2019 to November 2019. The sales range in area from 10,454.4-sf to 10,890.00-sf; the subject has 10,454.4-sf. The price/sf ranges from $97.34 to $178.55/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $138.70/sf or $1,392,024. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $35,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,897,753, the land value is estimated at $1,392,024 for a total cost of $3,324,777. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 3,928-sf to 5,877-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 10,454-sf to 19,602-sf. The buildings were built from 2000 to 2019. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $472.00 to $975.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $610.00/sf and a median of $542.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $542.00/sf of building area including land or $3,306,000 rounded. PET’s evidence is a 32-page report which included a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, and improved sales details for each sale with characteristics of the property with a photo and the listing sheet for each sale. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 7 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales sold from 2020-00185 Page 3 of 7 February 2019 to April 2020. The sales range in building size from 3,220-sf to 4,602-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .24 to .53 acres. The buildings were built from 1972 to 2019. The sale price/sf ranges from $593.92 to $900.62. PET did not provide adjustments to the sales. PET indicated the subject property sold in April 2020 for $2,950,000; PET noted the property was originally listed for $4,195,000 in October 2019 and the price was reduced in November 2019 to $3,948,000 and the price was further reduced to $3,600,000 in February 2020, the listing price was overstated. PET indicated the property was in need of repairs in the amount of $250,000. PET indicated sale of the subject is the best indicator of value at $2,950,000 less cost of sales of 15% for a just value of $2,510,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the 2020-00185 Page 4 of 7 following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that the properties in this neighborhood are all unique, having different sizes and amenities and finishes (custom built homes); PET did not make any adjustments to the comparable sales. PAO indicated that PET’s sales are all inferior to the subject. PAO indicated the property was listed for sale for $3,948,000 on January 1, 2020. PAO noted that PET used 3 sales, also used by PAO. As rebuttal, PET indicated that the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value and the listing at $3,948,000 is irrelevant. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in April 2020, outside the date of appraisal of January 1, 2020. PAO and PET used 3 of the same sales in subject neighborhood; PAO’s sales # 2(PET # 6), # 3(PET #2) and # 4 (PET # 7). PAO made adjustments to the sales, and the adjusted values range from $472.00 to 2020-00185 Page 5 of 7 $562.00/sf, with an average of $518.00. These three sales are similar in location, price range and size. SM has placed most emphasis on these three shared sales in estimating the value of the subject. SM has applied $518.00/sf to the subject 6,100-sf for an indicated value of $3,158,900 and deducted 15% for cost of sales for an indicated value of $2,685,800 rounded. PET demonstrated that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00185: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised 2020-00185 Page 6 of 7 just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $2,685,800 rounded. 2020-00185 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00187 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00187 17861800005 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 417 PALMCIR W NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 4,156,305.00 4,156,305.00 4,156,305.00 4,156,305.00 4,156,305.00 4,156,305.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4,106,305.00 4,106,305.00 4,106,305.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00187: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $4,156,305. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 3,215-sf and an adjusted building size of 5,268-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .45 acres or 18,295-sf. The property was built in 2017. The property sold in February 2019 for $4,450,000, and a remodel permit was issued for renovations in the amount of $432,000. The property is located at 417 Palm Circle West, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00187 Page 2 of 6 PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, the sales history for the subject and listing sheet with details of the subject with interior and photos. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales occurred from April 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in area from 7,405.2-sf to 22,651.2-sf; the subject has 18,295.2-sf. The price/sf ranges from $148.67 to $229.57/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $185.00/sf x .67 x 18,295.2= $2,267,690. (The value was reduced by 33% due to the shape of the site.) PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $35,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $2,170,544, the land value is estimated at $2,267,690 for a total cost of $4,473,234. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 improved sales in the neighborhood, including the subject. The sales occurred from January 2019 to July 2019. The sales range in building size from 3,389-sf to 6,223-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 7,405.2-sf to 18,295.2-sf. The buildings were built from 2000 to 2017. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $711.00 to $1,250.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $922.00/sf and a median of $871.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $871.00/sf of building area including land or $4,588,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of an 27-page report which consisted of a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, and improved sales details for each sale with characteristics of the property with a photo and the listing sheet for each sale. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00187 Page 3 of 6 PET provided 6 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales sold from February 2019 to March 2020. The sales range in building size from 2,867-sf to 5,088-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .17 to .36 acres. The buildings were built from 2015 to 2018. The sale price/sf ranges from $899.72 to $1,122.97. PET did not provide adjustments to the sales, however indicated the condition of the comparable sales were similar to the subject. PET indicated the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value, less cost of sales indicates a value of $3,800,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. 2020-00187 Page 4 of 6 (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the subject sold in February 2019 and appreciation has occurred since the sale of the subject to the date of appraisal of 1/1/20. PAO indicated that the properties in this neighborhood are all unique, having different sizes and amenities and finishes (custom built homes); PET did not make any adjustments to the comparable sales. PAO indicated the owner paid cash for the property and the cost of sales should be reduced by the sales commission. When adding the increase in value form the time of sale to date of sale and reducing the cost of sales the just value is supported. As rebuttal, PET indicated that the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in February 2019 and there has been some appreciation since the date of sale, as mentioned by PAO. PET did not make any adjustments to the comparable sales for differences in the properties. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or 2020-00187 Page 5 of 6 more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00187: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00187 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00188 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00188 10230120009 TIM HART 2219 GULF SHOREBLVDN NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 988,775.00 988,775.00 988,775.00 988,775.00 988,775.00 988,775.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 988,775.00 988,775.00 988,775.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/06/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00188: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Carla Allegro, Mr. Don Wegner, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a residential unit in the Indes West Condominium. The subject was built in 1968; thus, the subject is 52 years old. The subject’s address is 2219 Gulf Shore Boulevard North (unit A-3) in North in Naples. The adjusted building area is 16,414 SF situated upon a site of 92,922 SF (i.e. 2.13 acres). The subject’s building “A” is 1 of 4 western buildings facing a look with an excellent direct view of the Gulf of Mexico. Building A is also the closest to Doctors Pass Inlet. Buildings B, C, & D are also very similar in terms of direct views of the lagoon and the Gulf of Mexicso, while the remaining buildings have different water views that are not quite as desirable. Some buildings lack water views of any particular significance. A number of buildings on the eastern half of the site have dock views. The docks are not owned by condo residents, but rather leased from the condo association. The development also has a common swimming pool. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2007 via a quit claim deed between family members. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to support the subject’s assessment of $988,775 or $791.02/SF of building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, table of contents, evidence list, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, tax roll screens for the subject, site plan for the subject’s development, various photographs/views, aerial (showing building locations by alphabetical identifiers), and multiple sales grids from 2019 and 2018. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales from 2019, as well as a selected 2018 sale of unit D-4 for $1.35M, and a 2016 sale of unit D-2 for $1.285M, both with exactly the same size as the subject and with the same lagoon/Gulf direct view orientation. The 2019 sales include C-1 for $1.725M and C-2 for $1.7M, again with the same size & view orientation as the subject. The PAO provides 6 additional sales from 2019 that sold between $887,500 - $1.076M of the same size, yet inferior view quality compared to the subject. At the hearing I accepted a 1-page aerial from the PAO, which is basically a blow-up version of the aerial already on page 10 of the PAO’s original evidence that shows the building identifying letters in the subject’s complex. The PAO noted the PET’s sales 1-4 locations in that aerial, all of which are inferior in view quality to the subject’s direct lagoon & Gulf views. All of the PAO’s evidence is considered relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing with overwhelming evidence. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover page, summary of 2020-00188 Page 2 of 3 evidence, the subject’s tax roll summary from the PAO’s web site, the current TRIM for the subject, subject’s aerial of the condo site, Collier’s 2020 DR-493, a Comparable Sales Approach grid of 4 sales, & back-up information related to the PET’s 4 sales that ranged in price form $885K to $940K (all with exactly the same size of building area as the subject’s unit). The PET incorrectly identified the location of his sales on various aerial maps; however, none of the PET’s sales have view quality comparable to the subject’s direct lagoon/Gulf view, which is why all 4 sold for prices significantly less than identified by the PAO’s sales having high quality Gulf views. RULING: The PET’s presentation is extremely weak and the sales were incorrectly identified in exhibits by the PET. The PAO relied upon units in the western buildings having the highest view quality that is comparable to the subject’s view. The PAO’s presentation was very convincing and well presented. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00188: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00188 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00189 34520001005 TIM HART 12713 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113 18,877,549.00 18,877,549.00 18,877,549.00 18,585,765.00 18,585,765.00 18,585,765.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,585,765.00 18,585,765.00 18,585,765.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 02/06/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00190 56930960002 TIM HART 1089 COLLIER BLVD MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 18,263,651.00 18,263,651.00 18,263,651.00 18,263,651.00 18,263,651.00 18,263,651.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,263,651.00 18,263,651.00 18,263,651.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 02/06/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00191 66263000085 TIM HART 15265 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34119 14,230,509.00 14,230,509.00 11,237,000.00 11,663,154.00 11,663,154.00 11,237,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,663,154.00 11,663,154.00 11,237,000.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 02/07/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk VAB Petition #2020-191 PEBBLEBROOK I SH.CTR. 15265 Collier Blvd, Naples SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINAL RULING IS BASED UPON INCOME INFORMATIO PROVIDED BELOW, DUE TO CONFLICTING DATA IN THE RECORD Vacancy Tenant Type SF NNN Total 5.0% Publix (anchor)61,166 $11.10 $644,995 5.0% Locals 15,601 $51.75 $766,984 per rent roll> 76,767 $ rentable SF --------------------------- EGI>>> $18.39 $1,411,980 Other Income: CAM (outparcel McDonald's $8,583 land lease?>>BB&T PET's revenue projected>$118,125 CAM (outparcel Walgreens $8,583 --------------------------- Total EGI $20.16 $1,547,271 % of EGI $/SF NRA Expenses 31.00%($6.25) ($479,654) NOI $13.91 $1,067,617 mkt rate> 7.000% <from PET Millage> 1.076%<from PET OAR 8.076% >>>>>>>>>>>>8.076% $ rentable SF Preliminary Value $172.20 $13,219,623 Less Lease-up $0 PLUS EXCESS LAND $0 Less TPP $0 $ rentable SF $/SF land Real property $172.20 $13,219,623 $32.63 Less COS 15% ($1,982,943)($4.89) Real prop-COS >$146.38 $11,237,000 $27.74 CONTESTED JUST VALUE>>>$14,230,509 $35.13 PET WANTS>>>> $9,595,000 Land + impact fees = $9,470,000 THIS RULING FOR 2020 >> $11,237,000 $27.74 My prior VAB 2019 Ruling >>>> ($10,814,387) Dollar increase from 2019 >> $422,613 % increase from 2019>>> 3.91% ON DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00192 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00192 12730040001 TIM HART 1901 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 29,278,885.00 29,278,885.00 29,278,885.00 24,803,150.00 24,803,150.00 24,803,150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,803,150.00 24,803,150.00 24,803,150.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 02/08/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/09/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00192: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Ms. Jenny Blaje & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett in the hearing room. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Publix-anchored power center known as “Naples Plaza”, built in 1962-78. Other anchors include Marshall’s, the PGA store, and Office Depot. The subject’s address is 1901 9th Street, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area (per the PAO) is 203,171 SF situated upon a site of 724,860 SF (i.e. 16.64 acres). The Chevron gas station and Chase bank outparcels are not a part of this hearing. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in July 1999 for $20M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $29,278,885, or $144.11/SF of adjusted building area, or $40.39/SF of land area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC Regional South Investment Criteria for the 4th Quarter 2019, property record card, the subject’s prior deed, building permit history, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $32/SF X 724,860 SF = $23,200,000, plus $3,110,000 of impact fees for a total of $26,310000 (which is 89.9% of the contested just value). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Four (6, 9, 10, & 11) of the 11 were purchased for auto dealerships, which like busy traffic arteries just like shopping centers like to be visible to drive-by traffic. Those car dealership sites (#6, #9, #10, & #11) sold for $30.38, $17.02, $5.94, & $26.49/SF, respectively. PAO’s Land Sale #4 & #8 are the closest in proximity to the subject & sold for $34.82 (7.24 acres) and $39.21/SF (8.84 acres), respectively to support the subject’s estimate of $32/SF. It should also be recognized that the subject has a very good frontage-to-depth ration, given the subject’s frontage stretches along Tamiami Trail as Golden Gate Parkway has an intersection directly in front of the middle of the site. The PAO’s land value of $32/SF appears very well supported. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach 2020-00192 Page 2 of 5 estimate of $41,574,000 (before considering COS) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO fails to add the costs to achieve the current level of occupancy which means the subject’s just value could easily have been $1M-$2M greater. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 16 leased fee improved retail shopping center sales that closed during 2017, 2018 & 2019 in Lee, Collier, & Charlotte counties. Ten (10) of the sales had Publix anchors (like the subject). Three (3) of the sales lack anchors. The mean sales price is $211/SF, with a median of $192/SF. The PAO gives greater weight to a value below the mean & concludes $200/SF for the subject. Thus, $200/SF X 203,171 SF = $40,634,200 for the Sales Comparison Approach final conclusion (before COS consideration). Sale #10 is the closest sale to the subject. It has a Publix anchor & many other similar attributes and physical characteristics. It sold for $271/SF & was built in the 1986 to 1988 time frame. In the PAO’s Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $14/SF gross for the anchor (Publix, Marshalls, & the PGA Store) space of 134,434 SF, $18/SF gross for 15,392 SF of junior space, & $45/SF for 3,454 SF for the bank space, vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.2% (i.e. 6.00% + 1.2%) to the NOI of $2,569,891 for a value indication of $35,693,000, or $176/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. From the photographs in evidence, it would appear the older building improvements still do contribute to the overall property value. The PAO provides the subject’s building permit history that indicates well over $7M of construction work received a certificate of occupancy between 2016 and the end of 2018. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 133 pages (in 1 submittal to Axia) of the subject’s evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject’s tax roll summary sheet, subject’s tax roll sketch, site plan, subject’s 2020 Trim Notice, subject’s aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET also does include a portion of my 2019 decision to reduce that just value to $24,801,000. The PET’s cover sheet indicates he seeks a 2020 just value reduction to $21,432,000 [which is less than my prior 2019 VAB ruling & also less than the PAO’s current estimate of land value + impact fees of $26,310,000]. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 12 improved sales. There are 4 sales from Collier County. Sale #1 (Strand Shopping Center) was a non- market transfer and not a good sale. Sale #2 (Shoppes at Audobon) was non-anchored. Sale #3 was the Sears at Coastland Mall that was demolished. That transaction is also not a good sale, it was more of a loan transaction. Most of the other sales are from inferior locations in Lee & Manatee counties, and most are significantly smaller than the subject 2020-00192 Page 3 of 5 in size. I give little weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach and its conclusion of $22.6M (after COS). The PET includes an Income Approach and also a ‘side-by-side’ comparison [accepted at the hearing as rebuttal] with the PAO’s Income Approach. The PET presented an Income Approach almost identical to his 2019 VAB appeal. It is based upon 3 different rental group categories [described below], 5% vacancy for the anchor/junior anchor groups, & 10% vacancy for local tenants, $5.20/SF expenses, and a loaded cap rate of 8.015% (7.00% +1.015%). The PET concludes a value of $21,432,000 (after 15% COS deduction). The PET’s anchor rent was $9/SF gross for the 55,180 Publix space, and $11/SF gross for the Marshall’s & PGA store spaces of 37,669 SF & 40,209 SF, respectively. The ‘sub-anchor’ spaces were priced at $15/SF gross for 13,610 SF and 19,577 SF. The remaining local space of 35,550 SF was priced at $41/SF and given a higher vacancy rate of 10%, while all larger tenant categories were at 5% vacancy. The PET had a separate exhibit [used in his ’19 VAB petition] to support local space leases in the center [written in 2017] with an average of $41.01/SF gross, even though no actual rent roll was provided in evidence. The PET’s evidence is admissible, relevant & to a large extent credible, with the major exception of Sales Comparison Approach data that is lacking (discussed earlier). In reference to the Income Approach, the PET uses virtually the same information from his 2019 VAB appeal, yet only changes the millage rate when loading the cap rate. RULING: The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO, given the PAO provides 3 ‘fresh’ approaches to value in support of the assessment. The PET uses some older data that should have been updated more for this 2020 hearing. Also, some of the sales data used by the PET was incorrect and not reflective of actual market transactions that compare to the subject. It is recommended the subject’s value be upheld. In this hearing, it is evident that the subject site is quite valuable and has a very good frontage-to-depth ratio such that the site’s long rectangular dimension fronts busy Tamiami Trail North (not too far north of downtown Naples). A high ratio of the subject’s overall value is in the land + impact fees (which run with the land). Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00192: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of 2020-00192 Page 4 of 5 the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00192 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00193 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00193 00274160006 TIM HART 1471 AIRPORT RDN NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 13,163,000.00 13,163,000.00 13,163,000.00 13,163,000.00 13,163,000.00 13,163,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,163,000.00 13,163,000.00 13,163,000.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/27/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/11/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00193: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PAO’s 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida’s DOR. For 2020, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR’s certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO’s conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment ‘process’ and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject’s hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 193 & 199 were being heard together, as they combine as the operating entity known as ‘Tamiami Ford’. The subject was built in 1989, & the parking garage/car wash/oil change was built in 2018 [with a permit amount of $7.476M]. The subject’s address is 1471 Airport Road North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 61,646 SF situated upon a site of 337,099 SF (i.e. 7.74 acres). The subject also has a parking structure with 68,811 SF. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [2 petitions] of $13,464,920, or $218.42/SF of enclosed building area (or $103.21/SF based upon all 130,457 SF, which includes the parking garage). The subject’s just value increased 2.64% from 2019 to 2020. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail auto dealership sales data, the subject’s building card, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25 X 337,099 SF = $8,427,000, plus $2,403,032 of impact fees for a total of $10,857,507 (which is 80.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 7 commercial land sale 2020-00193 Page 2 of 6 indicators. Four (1,5, 6 & 7) of the 7 were purchased for auto dealerships, which is consistent with the subject’s use. The car dealership sites sold for $30.38/SF, $18.68, $22.84, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $25/SF appears supported by those sales. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $24,304,078 to support the subject’s assessment. It is worth noting that the subject’s recent (2017) building permit for the brand-new parking garage was $7,476,000. The PAO’s land value + impact fees + the parking garage permit amount combined combine for a total of $18,333,507, which supports the PAO’s assessment of $13,464,920 even without the added value of the 61,646 SF dealership building. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. All are auto dealerships except Sale #2 (a Harley Davidson dealership). The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $292.10-$444.28/SF, and 4 of the 7 sales are in Lee County. The PAO concludes $375/SF X 61,646 SF [without the garage] = $23,117,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. It is noted Sale #1 is a Chevy dealer in Estero (Lee County) that closed in 2019 for $399.82/SF. The remaining sales closed between January 2018 and October 2015. Thus, the PAO’s estimate of $375/SF of enclosed main dealership structures is within reason. Also the subject does have the added benefit of a new parking garage. The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. In the Income Approach, the PAO decided to refrain from showing various inputs and decided to omit this approach. Given the unique mix of space for each dealership and normally large site sizes, the Income Approach is typically this least reliable approach anyway for this type of property. In most cases, modern dealerships for major vehicle brands are owned & not leased. This makes it difficult to find representative rent comparables for properties like the subject, which is why the PAO decided to omit this approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the land value + impact fees + parking garage permit value total $18.33M, which is enough to support the assessment, even without considering the added value contribution of the 61,646 main dealership building improvements. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 168 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $11M for the combined value of the 2 petitions (i.e. $10,753,350 + $246,650). The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown (of 2 folios), value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s 2 Trim notices, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, Loopnet active listings, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, PwC net lease market data, RERC 1st Tier/2nd Tier/3rd Tier Investment characteristics/rates, Integra Realty Resources article/rates, roster of 14 dealership sales in Florida (2018 to October 2020), Costar backup dealership 2020-00193 Page 3 of 6 sales data, roster of 9 Collier County land sales (2017 to 2019), Collier tax roll back-up information for the land sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notices for these two petitions. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $8.00/SF applied to 130,457 SF of dealership buildings (without the parking garage), 5.0% vacancy, $0.76/ SF expenses, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.00% to the NOI of $892,326 to conclude a preliminary value of $12,747,513, less 15% COS = $10,835,386, or $83.06/ SF. The PET does include a “Lease Comparables” exhibit of dealerships from different parts of Florida. The PET uses a low $8/SF NNN figure for all building areas, which tends to suppress the value indication because the subject has a very significant parking structure 68,811 SF that is not accounted for equitably The PET’s summary of his 8 rent comparables could have better summarized other important characteristics, such as land area, LTB ratio, year built, etc. Most of the PET’s rent comps are generally in inferior cities/locations, but have rental rates ranging from $7.00 to $12/SF NN for their building areas (and none have parking garages). My review of the PET’s rental comp data strongly suggests the PET underestimates the subject’s NOI. As noted with the PAO’s decision to disregard the Income Approach, it is not easy to find good rental matches for the subject, given there are so many variables in space types, quality, age, traffic exposure, etc. Another issue that makes it difficult to compare the subject on a rental basis is the large size of the subject’s main dealership area of 61,646 SF, plus a large parking garage. The three larges rent comps have NRA’s of 41,020 SF, 50,508 SF, and 47,031 SF, respectively, and none have parking structures. Because of so many variables involved when comparing dealerships, I do not give the PET’s Cost Approach any weight. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 14 improved sales scattered throughout Florida. While the PAO managed to locate 8 sales from the Lee/ Collier market area, the PET only used one sale from Lee County. The remaining 13 sales mainly came from the Jax, Orlando, Daytona, & Greater Tampa Bay areas. PET’s Sales #1 & #9 (in Homestead & Orlando, respectively) are not considered timely for consideration, given they closed in late 2020. After making a 15% deduction for COS, the PET derives an average of $82.04 per SF of building indicator from the 14 sales. That figure is then applied to the subject’s 130,457 SF (inclusive of the parking garage), resulting in a market value indicator of $10,702,945 via the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject based upon 9 local (Collier) land sales from 2017-19. The PET derives a $/SF of land indicator, less 15% COS. The average is $7.30/SF X the subject’s 337,099 SF = $2,460,269. The PET then adds the PAO’s 2020 building assessment of $9,495,212 for a total (hybrid) Cost Approach indication of $11,955,481. As a rebuttal comment to this, the PAO notes that none of the land sales used in the PET’s analysis were dealership land sales. Also, PET’s first land sale was for multi-family development. RULING: 1.The PAO’s land value + impact fees + parking garage permit value total $18.33M, which is enough to support the assessment, even without considering the added value 2020-00193 Page 4 of 6 contribution of the 61,646 main dealership building improvements. 2.If plugging in the PET’s land value of $7.30/SF and using the rest of the PAO’s Cost Approach inputs, a figure of $18,337,347 results. The contested just value is 73.4% of that version of a ‘Cost Approach’; thus, the PET’s own land value helps (if it were considered accurate) supports the reasonableness of the PAO’s assessment, given the PET fails to follow through with a real Cost Approach analysis of the subject’s improvements, site work, soft costs, & entrepreneurial profit. 3.A more detailed look at the PET’s rent comparables tends to show the PET’s income projection is low because there does not appear to be adequate consideration of the parking garage’s influence on rent (and value). There are distortions in analysis created by the subject’s new parking garage, which is a trend exhibited by many new car dealerships being built. Parking garages do not appear to be present for virtually all the dealership market rental & sales data presented by both parties. However, parking garages are expensive to build and warrant consideration for this class of property. 4. As a related and supporting analysis regarding the influence of parking garages I examined the sales prices from the improved sales of both parties by the land areas of each respective sale to see if there was any consistency with the subject’s assessment per SF of land area. Using the PET’s 12 timely sales, the average sales price per SF of land area (for the improved sales) is $10.27. To reiterate, the PET used sales from many different parts of FL. The PAO’s 8 improved sales all came from the Lee/Collier area; thus, it would seem they are far more relevant. The average sales price per SF of land area (for those 8 improved sales is $34.73/SF, and that is from a data set that does not have parking garages associated with the sales. Interestingly enough, the contested just value equates to $39.94/SF of the subject’s land area, and the subject DOES have the new parking structure that easily warrants an add-on factor to the ‘generic’ indicator from the other Lee/Collier dealership sales. In other words, the PAO’s improved sales are more representative of local area conditions compared to the PET’s improved sales. Furthermore, a brand new 68,811 parking structure needs to be taken into consideration, as it is an expensive and desirable feature becoming more and more common among car dealerships. 5. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00193: 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 2020-00193 Page 5 of 6 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. 2020-00193 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00194 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00194: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as Tamiami Ford’s collision building. The subject was built in the 1997-2005 time frame. The subject’s address is 4648 Mercantile Avenue (TP-194) and 1210 Commercial Boulevard (TP-195). TESTIMONY: When the hearing started for these two petitions combined, the PAO announced a reduced combined value of $3,498,526 ($1,889,026 for TP-194 & $1,609,500 for TP-195). The PAO’s evidence submitted was in support of that combined figure. Subsequently, the PET announced his agreement with that combined assessment; therefore, I am denying any FURTHER relief & support the respective to reductions offered prior to the hearing by the PAO (i.e. ($1,889,026 for TP-194 & $1,609,500 for TP-195). The revised value of the whole (i.e. both petitions combined) prior to the hearing (but after the original TRIM) by the PAO is $3,498,526. Given the PET also is satisfied with that lowered figure, I do not grant any further reduction. In the interest of saving a great deal of time, I have not done a detailed breakdown of evidence, explanation of the approaches, and detailed analysis of the strengths & weaknesses of the various positions taken. Again, there is verbal agreement at this hearing between the parties. The PAO’s allocation of the TRIM amounts (prior to the hearing) have been applied & are upheld with no additional reduction warranted. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00194: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that 2020-00194 Page 2 of 3 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. 2020-00194 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00195 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00195: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as Tamiami Ford’s collision building. The subject was built in the 1997-2005 time frame. The subject’s address is 4648 Mercantile Avenue (TP-194) and 1210 Commercial Boulevard (TP-195). TESTIMONY: When the hearing started for these two petitions combined, the PAO announced a reduced combined value of $3,498,526 ($1,889,026 for TP-194 & $1,609,500 for TP-195). The PAO’s evidence submitted was in support of that combined figure. Subsequently, the PET announced his agreement with that combined assessment; therefore, I am denying any FURTHER relief & support the respective to reductions offered prior to the hearing by the PAO (i.e. ($1,889,026 for TP-194 & $1,609,500 for TP-195). The revised value of the whole (i.e. both petitions combined) prior to the hearing (but after the original TRIM) by the PAO is $3,498,526. Given the PET also is satisfied with that lowered figure, I do not grant any further reduction. In the interest of saving a great deal of time, I have not done a detailed breakdown of evidence, explanation of the approaches, and detailed analysis of the strengths & weaknesses of the various positions taken. Again, there is verbal agreement at this hearing between the parties. The PAO’s allocation of the TRIM amounts (prior to the hearing) have been applied & are upheld with no additional reduction warranted. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00195: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the 2020-00195 Page 2 of 3 evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00195 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00196 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00196: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PAO’s 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida’s DOR. For 2020, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR’s certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO’s conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment ‘process’ and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject’s hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as Tamiami Ford’s fleet services building. The subject was built in the 1978-97 time frame. The subject’s address is 4227 Domestic Avenue in Naples. The adjusted building area is 24,120 SF situated upon a site of 197,327 SF (i.e. 4.53 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold for $2.45M in February 5, 2016. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [2 petitions] of $3,680,300, or $152.58/SF of enclosed building area [i.e. without the covered canopies], or $18.65/SF of site area. The subject’s just value increased just 0.7% from 2019 to 2020. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, sales back- up photos/details, PwC cap rate analysis, PwC National Warehouse Market info, Realty Rates.com rates, impact fee calculations, and Costar market statistics. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $925,000 per acre or $21.23/SF. Given the site size, the land value estimate is $4,190,000 (rounded), plus $136,594 of impact fees for a total of $4,326,594 (which is 117.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 8 industrial land sale indicators, plus one listing. Two of the land sales closed well after the assessment date & were mainly considered for trending, yet they closely supported the other 6 sales. The PAO does provide back-up 2020-00196 Page 2 of 5 cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, indirect costs, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $5,883,000 to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO’s land value + impact fees supports the PAO’s assessment (with ample COS consideration), even without the other components of the Cost Approach. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 15 sales. Twelve of the 15 are located in the subject’s immediate area & industrial park; thus, most are good substitute industrial purchases. The PAO concludes $215/SF X 24,0120 SF = $5,186,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The subject does have a lower FAR than many of the sales, which tends to warrant an upward adjustment to the $/SF of building indicator. Thus, while the mean $/SF of building is $193, the PAO’s use of a higher figure of $215/ SF is not unreasonable. dthe added benefit of a new parking garage. The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. In the Income Approach, the PAO derived a weighted average rent of $397,847, based upon a mix of the subject’s types of space, inclusive of surplus land (76,727 SF @ $10.00/SF). Given the unique mix of shop, office, covered space and surplus land, the Income Approach is more prone to greater subjectivity. The PAO could have also imputed rent for the covered canopy areas (9,860 SF) but did not do so. Regardless, V&C is projected at 5%, expenses [without real estate taxes] at 15% (of EGI), and the NOI is capitalized using a loaded OAR of 7.7% (i.e. 6.5% + 1.2%), resulting in a value indication of $4,172,000, or $172.97/SF (before any COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 113 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $2.729M, or $113.14/SF of the adjusted building area [without the covered canopies], or $13.83/SF of the site area. The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown, subject’s tax roll summary sheet, BCPA’s sketches of the buildings, subject’s Trim notice, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Pro-Forma Income Approach Analysis, Costar market lease comparables, Loopnet active listings, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, PwC net lease market data, RERC 1st Tier/2nd Tier/3rd Tier Investment characteristics/rates, Integra Realty Resources article/rates, roster of 9 industrial sales in Naples, tax roll backup sales data, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notice for this petition. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $16.50/SF applied to 24,120 SF of enclosed buildings (without the covered canopy), 5.0% vacancy, $4.17/SF expenses, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.64% (7.50% +1.11475%) to the NOI of $277,531 to conclude a preliminary value of $3,210,396, less 15% COS = $2,728,837, or $113.14/SF. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 9 improved sales in Naples. However, 4 of the sales closed well after the assessment date & are not timely for consideration. That leaves the PET with 5 sales warranting consideration. The PET 2020-00196 Page 3 of 5 uses the average of the 9 ‘$/SF of building’ indicators, less 15% COS and applies it to the subject’s enclosed building area of 24,020 SF for a Sales Comparison Approach conclusion of $2,694,024. Once again, the subject’s significant covered canopy areas are not given consideration and also the subject’s surplus land area is not considered either. This is a major deficiency of the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach. As a test of reasonableness, I considered the 5 timely sales and their resulting sales prices/SF of land area. The average equated to $37.30/SF; whereas, the subject’s contested just value is half that figure at $18.65/SF of land area. This implies the subject’s assessment is within reason, yet it would have been more desirable if the PET had used sales with larger site sizes. At the hearing, I accepted rebuttal evidence from the PET, which was a ‘side-by-side’ comparison of the two respective Income Approaches already in evidence. The EGI’s are almost identical, yet the figures differ when it comes to expenses, NOI, and cap rates. The PET’s evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. RULING: 1.The PAO’s well-supported land value + impact fees total $4,326,594, which is 117.6% of the PAO’s assessment of $3,680,300, even without considering the added value contribution of the depreciated building improvements. 2.Land value is particularly important in a case like this, given the land area is quite significant at 4.53 acres and the FAR (floor to area ratio) is 12.2% [i.e. without the covered canopies]. Land is the basic building block of value and H&BU; thus, in a case like this where the land is such a significant component, the PET should have attempted to estimate land value with market evidence. For this hearing, the PAO did a good job of estimating the subject’s land value, along with associated impact fees (which run with the land). 3. A substantial amount of industrial properties are owner-occupied, particularly if occupied by a car dealership. Often such properties have a variety of special structures that serve different functions (such as body work, painting, parts storage, etc.). And when there is a great deal of extra land, open storage of vehicles is also important to the occupant. It is not unusual to see a ‘market-oriented FAR among many users, and then an add-on factor can be applied to certain valuation approaches for the extra land area associated with a given subject. While the PET’s use of $16.50/SF is higher than many of his rent comps, that level of projected rent still appears to be insufficient for the subject’s magnitude of land. Had the PET estimated land value as he should have done, a more reasonable estimate of value would have resulted. Furthermore, both the PET & PAO could have also better accounted for the value contribution of large covered canopy areas in their respective Sales Comparison & Income Approaches. 4. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00196: 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, 2020-00196 Page 4 of 5 the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 2020-00196 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00197 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00197 63000280003 TIM HART 6631 DUDLEYDR NAPLES, FL 34105✔ ✔ 1,353,540.00 1,353,540.00 1,353,540.00 1,305,629.00 1,305,629.00 1,305,629.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,305,629.00 1,305,629.00 1,305,629.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/06/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00197: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. All parties were present in the hearing room (not on the phone). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a freestanding restaurant (IHOP). The subject was built in 1989; thus, the subject is 31 years old. The subject’s address is 6631 Dudley Drive in Naples. The building area is 4,232 SF situated upon a site of 40,106 SF for a land-to-building (LTB) ratio of 9.48. The subject is located just west of the I-75/Pine Ridge Road interchange. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold for $3,150,000 as a leased fee sale in March 2016. The contested just value equates to 43.0% of that prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to support the subject’s assessment of $1,353,540, or $319.83/SF of building area, or $33.75/SF of site area. The 2020 contested just value increased 2.5% from 2019. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, table of contents, evidence list, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, tax roll screens for the subject, various interior & exterior photographs/views, aerials, building sketch, location map, land sales grid, secondary land sales (highway interchange locations), land sales maps, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, improved sales map, rent comparables roster, cap rates, reconciliation, impact fee calculations, land sales aerials/details, improved sales photos/details, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, Boulder Group Rates, and Avison Young 1st Qtr. 2020 rates. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $35/SF ($1.4M), plus $86,000 of impact fees for a total of $1.489M (which is 110.1?% of the total just value). The land value estimate was based upon 25 commercial land sale indicators, but I give most weight to land sales #21 – 25 because they are highway interchange locations. The subject does enjoy direct exposure to Pine Ridge Road. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $1,930,000 to support the subject’s assessment. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 9 leased fee sales from 2016 -2019 from Collier & Lee counties. However, they are given less weight because they are distorted by corporate guarantees. Sales 10, 11, & 12 are fee simple restaurant sales. I give less weight to Sale #10 because it was built in 1977, while #11 (4436/SF) & #12 ($720/SF) were built in ’95 & ’84, respectively. The PAO concludes $500/SF, or $2.116M via this approach, which does not appear unreasonable, given the subject sold for $3.15M ( $744/SF) back in 2016 as a leased fee sale. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $40/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.2% (6.0% + 2020-00197 Page 2 of 4 1.2% millage) to NOI of $128,653 for a value indication of $1,787,000, or $422/SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, particularly based upon the strong data presented for the Cost Approach. The land value + impact fees equal 110.1% of the PAO’s total assessment. The building does still appear to contribute to the overall property value and still has years of service remaining. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing with good support. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover page, summary of evidence, the subject’s tax roll summary from the PAO’s web site, the current TRIM for the subject, subject’s aerial, pro-forma Income Approach, roster of contract rents, lease comparables, market support for rates (via multiple surveys), roster of 9 sales (4 Burger Kings were part of a bulk sale), and back-up for the sales. The PET also provides other information related to the VAB process, case law, etc. that is not specific evidence related to this hearing. I accepted a 1-page rebuttal comparison of the Income Approach showing the PET’s position, as well as the PAO’s position in that approach. The PET’s analysis is based upon NNN rent and unloaded cap rate, while the PAO uses gross rent and a loaded c ap rate. While neither is incorrect conceptually, their positions far apart. As for improved sales, the PAO presents 9 sales, yet 4 the 4 Burger Kings apparently part of a bulk sale (inclusive of other Burger King restaurants). They should be disregarded. The Cracklin Jacks sale (#8) is a very small restaurant in a rural location; thus, it should also be disregarded for its lack of comparability. Sale #7 lacks a land area input. The remaining sales (#1, #2, and #9) have sales price/SF of land area indicators of $66.65/SF, $247.66/SF, and $71.74/SF. The subject’s contested just value is $33.75/SF of land area. The PET is requesting a just value of $1,065,000, or $251.65/SF of building area, $26.55/SF of site area. RULING: PET does not consider land value, which is significant in this case, because the subject has a high traffic count of 58,000 trips/day. Land value (and impact fees that run with the land). Understanding the land value is a major part of understanding H&BU, which is called for in F.S. 193.011 (2). The PET’s improved sales presentation is extremely weak the usable sales worthy of consideration tend to support the just value on a $/SF of land basis that is worthy of consideration because of the subject’s high 9.48 LTB ratio. The PET’s requested just value equates to $26.55/SF of land area, which falls toward the lower end of the substantial amount of land data provided by the PAO. This does not appear reasonable, because of the subject’s very high traffic count of 58,000 trips/day near a major interstate interchange. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00197: 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 2020-00197 Page 3 of 4 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner 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. 2020-00197 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00198 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00198: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PAO’s 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida’s DOR. For 2020, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR’s certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO’s conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment ‘process’ and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject’s hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a car dealership, known as ‘Tamiami Hyuandai”. The subject was built in 2014. The subject’s address is 6780 Airport Road North in Naples. The adjusted building area is 49,516 SF situated upon a site of 494,842 SF (i.e. 11.36 acres). Within the site there is 1.55 acres of a lake (water retention) area that the PAO excludes in the land valuation of the Cost Approach, as well be later explained. The subject also has a parking structure with 68,811 SF. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 5 years. The subject site did sell for $5.1M back in 2013. That price equated to $10.31/SF of the gross site area. The dealership was subsequently built in 2014. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Cost & Sales Comparison approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $13,300,839, or $268.62/SF of enclosed building area (or $26.88/SF of the gross site area). The subject’s just value increased 1.7% from 2019 to 2020. Major auto dealerships are usually owned & not leased; thus, the PAO did not prepare an Income Approach. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, reconciliation of values, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, CoStar retail auto dealership sales data, the subject’s building card, PwC cap rate analysis, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF by the ‘net usable’ site area (i.e. without the drainage lake) of X 427,324 SF = $10,683,000, plus impact fees of $909,464 for a total of $11,592,464 (which is 87.2% of the total assessment). The land 2020-00198 Page 2 of 5 value estimate was based upon the 7 commercial land sale indicators. Four (1,5, 6 & 7) of the 7 were purchased for auto dealerships, which is consistent with the subject’s use. The car dealership sites sold for $30.38/SF, $18.68, $22.84, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $25/SF appears supported by those sales. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $20,445,000 to support the subject’s assessment of $13,080,397. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. All are auto dealerships except Sale #2 (a Harley Davidson dealership). The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $292.10-$444.28/SF, and 4 of the 7 sales are in Lee County. The PAO concludes $400/SF X 49,516 SF = $19,806,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. It is noted Sale #5 is close to the subject & also on Airport Road. It is given most weight because it also has a similar building size & site size & it closed for $444.28/SF. The remaining sales closed between January 2018 and October 2015. Thus, the PAO’s estimate of $400/SF of enclosed main dealership structures is within reason. The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the land value + impact fees total $11.592M, which is enough to support 87.2% of the assessment, even without considering the added value contribution of the 49,516 SF of the main dealership’s building improvements that are only 6 years old. The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 160 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach, a hybrid version of the Cost Approach, and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $8.53M. The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s Trim notice, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, Loopnet active listings, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, PwC net lease market data, RERC 1st Tier/2nd Tier/3rd Tier Investment characteristics/rates, Integra Realty Resources article/rates, roster of 14 dealership sales in Florida (2018 to October 2020), Costar backup dealership sales data, roster of 9 Collier County land sales (2017 to 2019), Collier tax roll back-up information for the land sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notice for this petition. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $16.00/SF applied to 49,516 SF of dealership buildings, 5.0% vacancy, $1.52/SF expenses, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 6.75% to the NOI of $677,379 to conclude a preliminary value of $10,035,243, less 15% COS = $8,529,956, or $172.27/SF. The PET does include a “Lease Comparables” exhibit of 8 dealerships from different parts of Florida that range from $7.00/SF NNN to $12/SF NNN. The PET provides another chart of 16 ‘asking’ lease comps of auto dealerships that also comes from many different parts of Florida that range from $7.00/SF NNN to $23.29/SF NNN (asking). The PET’s summaries of the of 2020-00198 Page 3 of 5 his charts of 8 & 16 rent comparables could have better summarized other important characteristics, such as land area, LTB ratio, year built, etc. Most of the PET’s rent comps are generally in inferior cities/locations, yet 3 are from the Bonita Springs & Ft. Myers area. As noted with the PAO’s decision to disregard the Income Approach, it is not easy to find good rental matches for the subject, given there are so many variables in space types, quality, age, traffic exposure, etc. Another issue that makes it difficult to compare the subject on a rental basis is the large size of the subject’s main dealership area of 49,516 SF. However, the PET’s second roster of 16 properties does include 3 properties with NRA’s greater than 41,000 SF. Because of so many variables involved when comparing dealerships, I do not give the PET’s Income Approach very much weight. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 15 improved sales scattered throughout Florida. While the PAO managed to locate 2 sales from Collier County (but none from Lee County). The remaining 13 sales mainly came from the Jax, Orlando, Daytona, & Greater Tampa Bay areas. PET’s Sale #15 closed in March 2020 & is not considered timely for consideration at this hearing. After making a 15% deduction for COS to all sales, the PET derives an average of $193.47 per SF of building indicator from the 15 sales. That figure is then applied to the subject’s 49,516 SF, resulting in a market value indicator of $9,579,682. At that point, the PET makes an add-on for ‘surplus land’ at two different rates per SF of site. The first method adds at the PAO’s land assessment/SF of $15 (for a figure of $2,416,556), and also and $8.48/SF using land sales provided by the PET. The net result is a Sales Comparison Approach indicator of $11.966M or $10.947M, depending upon the surplus land rate applied. The PET includes a hybrid version of the Cost Approach for the subject based upon 10 local (Collier) land sales from 2016-19. The PET derives a $/SF of land indicator, less 15% COS. The average is $8.48/SF X the subject’s gross site area of 494,842 SF = $4,198,636. The PET then adds the PAO’s 2020 building assessment of $5,878,215 for a total (hybrid) Cost Approach indication of $10,076,851. The reason I call the PET’s analysis a “hybrid” Cost Approach is because the PET should be preparing a full approach using all customary inputs. It is not appropriate for the PET to use the PET’s improvement value from the tax rolls, as it may have been based upon mass appraisal techniques & may not be sufficiently accurate when analyzing the unique attributes of the subject’s specific building areas. It is noted that the subject’s site last sold for $5.1M back in April 2013. Almost 7 years later (with significant market appreciation) the PET now estimates the subject’s site value at $4.94M (i.e. $4,198,636 divided by 85%). Also, the PET fails to account for the $909,464 in impact fees, which ‘run with the land’. The PAO argues that most (if not all) of the PET’s land sales were not automotive dealership sales; thus, they fail to offer sufficient comparability to the subject. This explains why the PET’s estimate of land value is so much less than the PAO’s land value estimate. There are other physical and locational differences, as well, which make most of the PET’s land sales inferior to the subject’s location. RULING: 1.The PAO’s land value + impact fees total $11.592M, which is enough to support 87.2% of the assessment, even without considering the added value contribution of the 49,516 2020-00198 Page 4 of 5 SF of the main dealership’s building improvements that are only 6 years old. 2.If plugging in the PET’s land value of $4,198,636 and using the rest of the PAO’s Cost Approach inputs, a figure of $13,960,835 results, which exceeds the contested just value of $13,300,839. However, the PAO’s land sales (all dealerships) are sufficiently compelling to easily support a much higher land value than the $8.48/SF estimated by the PET. 3. PAO’s improved sale #4 (less than 4 blocks away from the subject and also on Airport Road) is quite similar to the subject in terms of site size & building size. It sold for $444.28/SF, which is highly supportive of the subject’s just value of $268.62/SF. 4. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET’s Cost Approach is a ‘hybrid’ version that fails to follow normal appraisal techniques. The PET’s improved sales search could have included more of the localized sales data that the PAO was able to locate, rather than use data from other parts of Florida. The PET’s land sales would have been better and more suitable if they were also developed into auto dealerships. The PAO was able to locate many such land sales that offer far greater comparability and more consistent with the subject’s H&BU. While the PET’s evidence is admissible and relevant, the credibility was lacking with regard to the deficiencies noted. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00198: 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. 2020-00198 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00199 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00199 00274200005 TIM HART 1471 AIRPORT RDN NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 301,920.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/27/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/11/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00199: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PAO’s 2019 TAX ROLL & LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT & EQUALIZATION SUPPORT: Each year, the PAO presents a similar set of information, based upon their recent interactions and audit by the State of Florida’s DOR. For 2020, the PAO submitted a 54-page package of data related to various assessment topics, definitions, processes, laws, legislative matters, and the DOR’s certification of the Collier County tax rolls. The PAO also includes their DR-493 (reflecting a 15% across-the-board consideration for COS to all use codes), as well as traffic counts at stations throughout Collier County. Stratum ratio statistics are provided in 4 different charts as they relate to the Collier PAO’s conformance to statistical assessment norms, which resulted in their successful certification for 2019. This package of data is generic to the assessment ‘process’ and is not unique evidence specifically oriented to the subject’s hearing. The unique evidence will be described throughout the remainder of this ruling. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 193 & 199 were being heard together, as they combine as the operating entity known as ‘Tamiami Ford’. The subject was built in 1989, & the parking garage/car wash/oil change was built in 2018 [with a permit amount of $7.476M]. The subject’s address is 1471 Airport Road North, Naples, Florida. The adjusted building area is 61,646 SF situated upon a site of 337,099 SF (i.e. 7.74 acres). The subject also has a parking structure with 68,811 SF. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 10 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [2 petitions] of $13,464,920, or $218.42/SF of enclosed building area (or $103.21/SF based upon all 130,457 SF, which includes the parking garage). The subject’s just value increased 2.64% from 2019 to 2020. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail auto dealership sales data, the subject’s building card, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25 X 337,099 SF = $8,427,000, plus $2,403,032 of impact fees for a total of $10,857,507 (which is 80.6% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 7 commercial land sale 2020-00199 Page 2 of 6 indicators. Four (1,5, 6 & 7) of the 7 were purchased for auto dealerships, which is consistent with the subject’s use. The car dealership sites sold for $30.38/SF, $18.68, $22.84, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $25/SF appears supported by those sales. The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $24,304,078 to support the subject’s assessment. It is worth noting that the subject’s recent (2017) building permit for the brand-new parking garage was $7,476,000. The PAO’s land value + impact fees + the parking garage permit amount combined combine for a total of $18,333,507, which supports the PAO’s assessment of $13,464,920 even without the added value of the 61,646 SF dealership building. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. All are auto dealerships except Sale #2 (a Harley Davidson dealership). The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $292.10-$444.28/SF, and 4 of the 7 sales are in Lee County. The PAO concludes $375/SF X 61,646 SF [without the garage] = $23,117,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. It is noted Sale #1 is a Chevy dealer in Estero (Lee County) that closed in 2019 for $399.82/SF. The remaining sales closed between January 2018 and October 2015. Thus, the PAO’s estimate of $375/SF of enclosed main dealership structures is within reason. Also the subject does have the added benefit of a new parking garage. The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. In the Income Approach, the PAO decided to refrain from showing various inputs and decided to omit this approach. Given the unique mix of space for each dealership and normally large site sizes, the Income Approach is typically this least reliable approach anyway for this type of property. In most cases, modern dealerships for major vehicle brands are owned & not leased. This makes it difficult to find representative rent comparables for properties like the subject, which is why the PAO decided to omit this approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the land value + impact fees + parking garage permit value total $18.33M, which is enough to support the assessment, even without considering the added value contribution of the 61,646 main dealership building improvements. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 168 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach, and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $11M for the combined value of the 2 petitions (i.e. $10,753,350 + $246,650). The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown (of 2 folios), value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s 2 Trim notices, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, Loopnet active listings, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, PwC net lease market data, RERC 1st Tier/2nd Tier/3rd Tier Investment characteristics/rates, Integra Realty Resources article/rates, roster of 14 dealership sales in Florida (2018 to October 2020), Costar backup dealership 2020-00199 Page 3 of 6 sales data, roster of 9 Collier County land sales (2017 to 2019), Collier tax roll back-up information for the land sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notices for these two petitions. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $8.00/SF applied to 130,457 SF of dealership buildings (without the parking garage), 5.0% vacancy, $0.76/ SF expenses, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.00% to the NOI of $892,326 to conclude a preliminary value of $12,747,513, less 15% COS = $10,835,386, or $83.06/ SF. The PET does include a “Lease Comparables” exhibit of dealerships from different parts of Florida. The PET uses a low $8/SF NNN figure for all building areas, which tends to suppress the value indication because the subject has a very significant parking structure 68,811 SF that is not accounted for equitably The PET’s summary of his 8 rent comparables could have better summarized other important characteristics, such as land area, LTB ratio, year built, etc. Most of the PET’s rent comps are generally in inferior cities/locations, but have rental rates ranging from $7.00 to $12/SF NN for their building areas (and none have parking garages). My review of the PET’s rental comp data strongly suggests the PET underestimates the subject’s NOI. As noted with the PAO’s decision to disregard the Income Approach, it is not easy to find good rental matches for the subject, given there are so many variables in space types, quality, age, traffic exposure, etc. Another issue that makes it difficult to compare the subject on a rental basis is the large size of the subject’s main dealership area of 61,646 SF, plus a large parking garage. The three larges rent comps have NRA’s of 41,020 SF, 50,508 SF, and 47,031 SF, respectively, and none have parking structures. Because of so many variables involved when comparing dealerships, I do not give the PET’s Cost Approach any weight. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 14 improved sales scattered throughout Florida. While the PAO managed to locate 8 sales from the Lee/ Collier market area, the PET only used one sale from Lee County. The remaining 13 sales mainly came from the Jax, Orlando, Daytona, & Greater Tampa Bay areas. PET’s Sales #1 & #9 (in Homestead & Orlando, respectively) are not considered timely for consideration, given they closed in late 2020. After making a 15% deduction for COS, the PET derives an average of $82.04 per SF of building indicator from the 14 sales. That figure is then applied to the subject’s 130,457 SF (inclusive of the parking garage), resulting in a market value indicator of $10,702,945 via the Sales Comparison Approach. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject based upon 9 local (Collier) land sales from 2017-19. The PET derives a $/SF of land indicator, less 15% COS. The average is $7.30/SF X the subject’s 337,099 SF = $2,460,269. The PET then adds the PAO’s 2020 building assessment of $9,495,212 for a total (hybrid) Cost Approach indication of $11,955,481. As a rebuttal comment to this, the PAO notes that none of the land sales used in the PET’s analysis were dealership land sales. Also, PET’s first land sale was for multi-family development. RULING: 1.The PAO’s land value + impact fees + parking garage permit value total $18.33M, which is enough to support the assessment, even without considering the added value 2020-00199 Page 4 of 6 contribution of the 61,646 main dealership building improvements. 2.If plugging in the PET’s land value of $7.30/SF and using the rest of the PAO’s Cost Approach inputs, a figure of $18,337,347 results. The contested just value is 73.4% of that version of a ‘Cost Approach’; thus, the PET’s own land value helps (if it were considered accurate) supports the reasonableness of the PAO’s assessment, given the PET fails to follow through with a real Cost Approach analysis of the subject’s improvements, site work, soft costs, & entrepreneurial profit. 3.A more detailed look at the PET’s rent comparables tends to show the PET’s income projection is low because there does not appear to be adequate consideration of the parking garage’s influence on rent (and value). There are distortions in analysis created by the subject’s new parking garage, which is a trend exhibited by many new car dealerships being built. Parking garages do not appear to be present for virtually all the dealership market rental & sales data presented by both parties. However, parking garages are expensive to build and warrant consideration for this class of property. 4. As a related and supporting analysis regarding the influence of parking garages I examined the sales prices from the improved sales of both parties by the land areas of each respective sale to see if there was any consistency with the subject’s assessment per SF of land area. Using the PET’s 12 timely sales, the average sales price per SF of land area (for the improved sales) is $10.27. To reiterate, the PET used sales from many different parts of FL. The PAO’s 8 improved sales all came from the Lee/Collier area; thus, it would seem they are far more relevant. The average sales price per SF of land area (for those 8 improved sales is $34.73/SF, and that is from a data set that does not have parking garages associated with the sales. Interestingly enough, the contested just value equates to $39.94/SF of the subject’s land area, and the subject DOES have the new parking structure that easily warrants an add-on factor to the ‘generic’ indicator from the other Lee/Collier dealership sales. In other words, the PAO’s improved sales are more representative of local area conditions compared to the PET’s improved sales. Furthermore, a brand new 68,811 parking structure needs to be taken into consideration, as it is an expensive and desirable feature becoming more and more common among car dealerships. 5. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00199: 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 2020-00199 Page 5 of 6 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. 2020-00199 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00201 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00201 66261900022 TIM HART 15205 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 16,375,931.00 16,375,931.00 16,375,931.00 16,375,931.00 16,375,931.00 16,375,931.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,375,931.00 16,375,931.00 16,375,931.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 02/08/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/09/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00201: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Chris DelPo. The Petitioner (PET) is Property Tax Alliance Group, as represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett in the hearing room. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 1 & 2-story shopping center, known as the “Pebblebrook Center Phase IV”. There are some offices on the 2nd floor, in addition to (mainly) retail on the ground floor. The subject is adjacent to a different phase of Pebblebrook [heard in a separate hearing] that is anchored by a Publix; thus, this property benefits by its adjacent location and customer draw created by Publix. The subject was built in 2006. The subject’s address is 15205 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida. This location is in the SW quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. Per the PAO’s evidence, the adjusted building area is 59,244 SF situated upon a site of 305,791 SF (i.e. 7.02 acres). Apparently, the subject was at 94.6% occupancy on the assessment date. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been two recent transfers of the subject that are given significant weight in this hearing. The first was for $17,500,800 in September 2016. The more recent sale was for $20,000,000 in October 2018. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $16,375,931, or $276.42/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, CoStar retail strip center and lease comparable data, CoStar comparable sales and rental data, PwC cap rate analysis, RERC Regional South Investment Criteria for the 4th Quarter 2019, property record card, the subject’s prior deed, permit history, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated $15,872,000 (before considering COS). However, the PAO forgot to add in the costs to get to stabilized occupancy, which is why this approach appears lower than the other two approaches. It is likely the PAO could have justified at least $1M in lease-up costs to put this approach more on par with the other approaches. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO, $320/SF X 59,244 SF = $18,958,000 (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rents at $32.85/SF (gross), vacancy/collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 30.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.2% [6.00% + 1.02%] to NOI of $1,226,247 for a value indication of $17,031,000 (before COS 2020-00201 Page 2 of 4 consideration). Arguably, the PAO may be too pessimistic with a 10% vacancy rate projected, given the subject is currently at 94.6% and adjacent to a Publix. The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 124 pages (in 1 submittal to Axia) of the subject’s evidence and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject’s tax roll summary sheet, subject’s tax roll sketch, site plan, subject’s 2020 Trim Notice, subject’s aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, contract rents, anchor lease comparables, vacant anchor asking rents, active listings and leases, REIS, Inc. lease comparables, market data, RealtyRates.com investor surveys, cap rate extraction analysis, PwC overall cap rate analysis, national net lease market data, operating expense analysis, comparable land sales data, comparable sales tax rolls sheets and aerials, ground photographs, CoStar comparable data sheets & Form DR-481. The PET also presents a rent roll dated December 31, 2019. The PET’s cover sheet indicates he seeks a 2020 just value reduction to $12,593,000, which is just 63% of the subject’s most recent sale for $20M in October 2018. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 8 improved sales. There are 4 sales from Collier County. Sale #1 is a single-user leased fee sale for the Hobby Lobby and it is not comparable to a multi-tenant shopping center. It is irrelevant and disregarded. Sale #2 (Strand Shopping Center) was a non-market transfer and not a good sale. Sale #3 (Shoppes at Audobon) was non-anchored (like the subject), but at least the subject is adjacent to a Publix and greatly benefits from Publix traffic. Most of the other sales are from inferior locations in Lee & Manatee counties, yet generally similar to the subject in size. I give limited weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach. The PET includes an Income Approach and also a ‘side-by-side’ comparison [accepted as rebuttal at the hearing from the PET] with the PAO’s Income Approach. The PET projects expenses at $8.99/SF (without property taxes), yet it appears from the rent roll that the CAM fee is much less at $7.31/SF. It is interesting the PET provides the subject’s rent roll, yet fails to provide the subject’s expenses (or P&L statement) to better verify expenses. Typically, they should be more in line with the CAM. The PET’s Income Approach results in a figure of $13,418,000 (after COS). The PET’s evidence is admissible, relevant & to a large extent credible, with the major exception of Sales Comparison Approach data that is lacking (discussed earlier). In reference to the Income Approach, the rent roll becomes very helpful in establishing revenue. RULING: There have been two recent sales of the subject that are given significant weight by me in this hearing. The first was the sale for $17,500,800 in September 2016. The more recent & more significant sale was for $20,000,000 in October 2018. Since late 2018, prevailing interest rates have continued to decline a little, which has the result of moderating (i.e. lowering) cap rates. In addition, any CPI or step rents would have pushed rents slightly higher at the subject after 2018. Thus, the pet’s request for a just value of $12,593,000 2020-00201 Page 3 of 4 does not make any sense, as it is only 63% of the late 2018 purchase price of $20M, while the market (in general) has continued to appreciate steadily leading up to the assessment date. It is hard to argue with one good open-market sale of the subject, much less two recent sales that refute the reasonableness of the PET’s request. While I did consider the PAO’s reconciled value less a COS discount I give greater weight to the recent sales of the subject. While I realize the assessment is to be based upon a fee simple valuation, it could have been very helpful to review the subject’s actual P & L, which apparently was not provided by the PET for this hearing & also not provided to the PAO when making their annual request from commercial property owners to provide financial details. The charged CAM (which should include taxes) is much less than the expenses projected (without taxes) by the PET. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors supporting the PAO’s just value. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00201: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00201 Page 4 of 4 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00209 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00209 36664000009 SALSBURY, JEFF 4361 1ST AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 309,032.00 309,032.00 309,032.00 309,032.00 309,032.00 309,032.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 259,032.00 259,032.00 259,032.00 ✔ (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 10/19/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/18/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact: Petitioners are Jeff and Laura Salisbury, who own property located at 4361 1st Avenue NW, Naples, Florida. Petitioner are appealing a denial of their request for transfer of the Homestead Assessment Difference, also known as the Save Our Homes benefit or saving. Both Petitioners appeared. The Property Appraiser's Office was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions & Customer Service Departments, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions ("PAO"). Petitioner had no evidence to present other than their testimony. The PAO offered their evidence package consisting of twelve pages, which was admitted without objection. All participants were sworn in. On December 26, 2019, a quitclaim deed transferring title to the Petitioners was recorded. Although the deed recited that no consideration was given for the transfer, the Clerk's stamp shows that documentary stamp taxes were paid for the consideration amount of $81,824. (PAO Ex. 1, p.9) This amount reflected what remained on the mortgage loan. (Jeff Salsbury) The Grantors were Richard W. White, Jr. and Sr. (PAO Ex. 1, p.9) Richard White, Sr. is Jeff Salsbury's step-father, and Richard White, Jr., Is Jeff Salsbury's brother. (Jeff Salsbury) The house was purchased in March, 2010, with the intent that the Salsburys would reside there with their brother, Richard, who wanted to go to school in Florida. (J. Salsbury) The Whites financed the purchase because Mr. Salsbury's credit was not good enough to qualify for the loan. (PAO Ex. 1, p.8; Jeff Salsbury) The mortgage lists only the Whites as co-borrowers. (Ybaceta) The house was owned by the "family" and was used as a family residence. (L. Salsbury) The Salsburys lived in the house since its purchase, paid all taxes and all mortgage payments. (Salsbury) The property held a homestead exemption since its purchase in the name of Richard W. White, Jr. Petitioners were unaware of the homestead consequences of not having their name on the property. The brother graduated from school either in 2018 or 2019, as a doctor, and travelled for two years as part of his work. The property was ultimately placed in the Salsburys' name when the brother got married and established a permanent residence down the street. (Salsbury) Prior to the marriage, Richard W. White , Jr., maintained a camper on the property where he returned periodically during his two year traveling period. PAO objected to any evidence as to the brother's residence as being irrelevant. This objection was overruled. Conclusions of Law: Section 196.031(1)(a) provides that a “person who, on January 1, has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence. . . is entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . ..” The statutory scheme behind the Save Our Homes (SOH) assessment cap and its transfer is set forth in Section 193.155. Section 193.155(3)(a), Fla. Stat., provides that homestead property will be assessed at just value as of January 1 of the year following a change of ownership. Change of ownership is defined in the statute and means “any sale, 2020-00209 Page 2 of 5 foreclosure, or transfer of legal title or beneficial title in equity to any person. . ..” This reference to beneficial title in equity mirrors language under s. 196.031, which provides for the homestead exemption in these instances. Court often look to both of these statutes if a question of interpretation arises. On December 2, 2019 Petitioners acquired legal title to the property by virtue of a quitclaim deed. On December 26, 2019, Petitioners applied for a homestead exemption for 2020 and were granted it. Upon applying for the exemption, Petitioners sought to transfer the SOH assessment savings that inured to the property under the prior owner. This Request was denied by the PAO. The issue in this appeal is whether Petitioners met the statutory requirements for such transfer. After defining “change of ownership,” subsection 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., then lists a number of exceptions to this definition, to-wit: 1. Subsequent to the change or transfer, the same person is entitled to the homestead exemption as was previously entitled and: a. The transfer of title is to correct an error; b. The transfer is between legal and equitable title or equitable and equitable title and no additional person applies for a homestead exemption on the property; c. The change or transfer is by means of an instrument in which the owner is listed as both grantor and grantee of the real property and one or more other individuals are additionally named as grantee. However, if any individual who is additionally named as a grantee applies for a homestead exemption on the property, the application is considered a change of ownership; or d. The person is a lessee entitled to the homestead exemption under s. 196.041(1). 2. Legal or equitable title is changed or transferred between husband and wife, including a change or transfer to a surviving spouse or a transfer due to a dissolution of marriage; 3. The transfer occurs by operation of law to the surviving spouse or minor child or children under s. 732.401; or 4. Upon the death of the owner, the transfer is between the owner and another who is a permanent resident and who is legally or naturally dependent upon the owner. It is clear under the language of the statute that the deed recorded on December 2, 2019 constitutes a transfer of ownership. It is equally clear that none of the statutory exceptions listed above apply to the instant case. Petitioners argue that they were in fact owners of an equitable interest in the property by virtue of the family intent in purchasing the home and Petitioners’ payment of all taxes and mortgage payments since its purchase and, therefore, should be permitted to retain the Save Our Homes savings. However, this argument ignores the simple requirement that a person cannot acquire the SOH cap until and unless that person is a recipient of a homestead exemption. See Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277, 286 (Fla. 2004). This was not done until December 26, 2019. 2020-00209 Page 3 of 5 Although the constitution and Florida statutes recognize equitable ownership of property, the type of equitable interest qualifying for homestead is limited to those contained in s. 196.041. See Prewitt Management Corp. v. Nikolits, 795 So. 2d 1001, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(section 196.041 is exclusive list.) Section 196.041(Extent of Homestead Exemption) describes the types of title holders that qualify as having beneficial title in equity as follows: (1) Vendees in possession of real estate under bona fide contracts to purchase when such instruments, under which they claim title, are recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court where said properties lie, and who reside thereon in good faith and make the same their permanent residence; persons residing on real estate by virtue of dower or other estates therein limited in time by deed, will, jointure, or settlement; and lessees owning the leasehold interest in a bona fide lease having an original term of 98 years or more in a residential parcel or in a condominium parcel as defined in chapter 718, or persons holding leases of 50 years or more, existing prior to June 19, 1973, for the purpose of homestead exemptions from ad valorem taxes and no other purpose, shall be deemed to have legal or beneficial and equitable title to said property. In addition, a tenant-stockholder or member of a cooperative apartment corporation who is entitled solely by reason of ownership of stock or membership in the corporation to occupy for dwelling purposes an apartment in a building owned by the corporation, for the purpose of homestead exemption from ad valorem taxes and for no other purpose, is deemed to have beneficial title in equity to said apartment and a proportionate share of the land on which the building is situated. The statute further provides for a homestead exemption if a person’s “possessory right in such real property is based upon an instrument granting to him or her a beneficial interest for life, such interest being hereby declared to be “equitable title to real estate,” as that term is employed in s. 6, Art. VII of the State Constitution." Section 196.041(2), Fla. Stat. It is clear from the statute and the judicial opinion applying the statute in Prewitt Management Corp. that even if Petitioners had applied for a homestead exemption in their own right prior to acquiring legal title by deed in 2019, the application would not have been granted. Although Petitioners may have an equitable interest based on a constructive trust theory, this type of interest is not contained in this statutory list, and, therefore, not recognized by Florida law and eligible for a homestead exemption. Petitioners were simply caught in a Catch-22. As long as the property was subject to a mortgage, the Whites could not grant Petitioners any interest in the property without violating the mortgage and possibly triggering acceleration of the debt. Without legal title or any other interest recognized in 196.041, Fla. Stat., Petitioners could not acquire a homestead exemption in their name and any rights to a SOH assessment benefit, even though the property was their permanent home. Petitioners have the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property 2020-00209 Page 4 of 5 Appraiser’s removal of, or failure to transfer, the SOH assessment benefit was wrong, and that Petitioners were entitled to the SOH savings acquired by Richard W. White, Jr., and accruing since 2010. The evidence admitted in this case was relevant and credible but undisputed. Legal title was transferred to Petitioners in 2019, which constituted a change in ownership per ss. 193.155(3)(a) and 196.031, Fla. Stat. and reset the SOH assessment cap, resulting in a loss of the SOH savings accrued by the brother, Richard W. White, Jr. The greater weight of the credible and relevant evidence supported the PAO’s decision to reset the SOH cap. Consequently, the overall weight of the evidence was insufficient to meet Petitioners’ burden of proof, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be denied. 2020-00209 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00210 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00210 00296240001 DENEEN L. MALY 1600 WELLESLEY CIR NAPLES, FL 34116✔ ✔ 29,922,180.00 29,922,180.00 27,866,000.00 29,922,180.00 29,922,180.00 27,866,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,922,180.00 29,922,180.00 27,866,000.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/26/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/27/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00210: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in person by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented in person by Ms. Deneen Maly. All parties were present in the hearing room (not on the phone). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 200-unit apartment complex known as Alvista Golden Gate. The subject was built in 1988; thus, the subject is 32 years old. The subject’s address is 1600 Wellesley Circle in Naples. The building area is 194,482 SF, resulting in an average unit size of 972 SF/unit. The buildings are situated upon a site of 753,588 SF (17.3 acres). The land-to-building (LTB) ratio is 3.87. The subject is located at the NW quadrant of I-75 and Santa Barbara Boulevard (yet there is no interstate access at this location). The subject has a common clubhouse and swimming pool. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold for $34,650,000 in December 2018. The contested just value equates to 86.4% of that recent sales price (yet TPP was apparently included in the purchase price). A full year of potential appreciation has also transpired. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to support the subject’s assessment of $29,922,180, or $149,611/unit. The 2020 contested just value increased $185,202, or 0.62% from 2019. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, table of contents, evidence list, aerial photo(s), the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, tax roll screens for the subject, various interior & exterior photographs/views, amenity pictures, building sketches, location map, various market & demographic statistics/graphs, land sales grid, land sales map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, Income Approach, improved sales map [for the Collier sales], operating expense analysis, market-extracted cap rates (Collier & Lee County areas), rent comparables roster, roster of market- extracted cap rates, H&BU discussion, reconciliation, impact fee calculations, land sales aerials/details, improved sales grid, improved sales photos/details, subject’s Collier County tax roll summary, operating expense analysis, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, CBRE North America Cap Rate survey, National Apartments Association 2019 revenue/ expense breakdown, RERC 4th Quarter 2019 South Region rate survey, & the subject’s building card information. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO estimates land value at $15/SF ($11.3M), plus $2.4M of impact fees for a total of $13.7M (which is 45.8% of the total just value). The land value estimate was based upon 10 land sale indicators. Nine of the 10 land sales closed between after 9/1/2016, while #10 sold in late 2013. The average of the 10 sales was $10.94/SF. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, depreciated value of the site 2020-00210 Page 2 of 5 improvements/paving, indirect costs, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $29,267,000, which is a little less than the contested just value. The PAO failed to consider ‘costs to achieve stabilized occupancy’ (i.e. ‘lease-up costs’). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 apartment building 4-star sales from March 2016 to January 2020 from Collier & Lee Counties, resulting in an average price/unit of $193,699. However, all 12 of those sales are much newer than the subject. The PAO also provides a grid of 14 additional sales of 3-star properties from Collier & Lee Counties that would seem to be more representative of the subject’s age & investment class, even though CoStar designates the subject as 4- star. The average of these 14 sales is $123,255/unit. The PAO notes the average 3-star & 4-star sales data by county (i.e. Collier & Lee). The PAO concludes $180,000/unit via this approach or $35,892,000. Using $180,000/unit appears a little aggressive given the subject just sold in December 2019 for $173,250/unit. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $1.30/SF, other income at 8% of gross rents, vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses [without taxes] at 30%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 6.45% (5.25% + 1.2% millage) to NOI of $2,187,005 for a value indication of $33,907,000, or $168,995/unit. The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches for a value (before deducting for COS) of $35,470,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover page, summary of evidence, aerial photograph of the subject, CoStar summary of the subject (with photos), the subject’s tax roll summary from the PAO’s web site, a pro-forma Income Approach, recent deed for the 2018 sale, a ‘cost segregation study’ prepared by Madison Specs, 2019 income/expense analysis [indicating 97.5% occupancy on 12/31/2019], rent roll as of 12/25/2019, CoStar rental breakdown of the subject (as of 1/1/2020 indicating a $1.20/SF overall asking rent], lengthy CoStar rental analysis, Comparable Sales Approach with 3 sales (which incorrectly included the tax credit property known as ‘Ospreys Landing’), CoStar back-up sales data, other CoStar sales information for the local market, an RERC report (dated November 2019), a CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey, & Collier County’s DR-493 for 2020. The ‘cost segregation study’ prepared by Madison Specs appears to be prepared for income tax depreciation purposes and not a ‘market-oriented’ separation of land & building components. In other words, it is more of an accounting analysis and it is not given any weight in this hearing, especially because the land value does not appear to be based upon relevant market sales data. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PET presented three sales (all 3-star properties). The tax credit property #2 (Osprey’s Landing) should not have been included, resulting in two sales constructed in 1988 & 1990 to compare with the subject (built in 1988). The subject’s average unit size is 972 SF & contested just value of $149,611/unit, while Sale #1 (El Dorado with 120 units) has an average unit size of 910 SF & sold for $128,917/ unit (after COS deduction). Sale #3 (Waverly Place with 300 units) has an average unit size of 884 SF and sold for $136,000/unit (after COS deduction). While only two sales 2020-00210 Page 3 of 5 are considered in the PET’s analysis, it does suggest the subject’s contested just value is a little aggressive. In the Income Approach, the PET’s pro-forma projects figures that are extremely close to the figures projected by the PAO, as was mentioned by the PET at the hearing. The PET’s NOI is only $79,451 less than the PAO’s, yet that is slightly offset by the PET’s cap rate that is 0.04% lower than the PAO’s cap rate. The main difference is that the PET makes the 15% COS deduction, while the PAO does not. It is noted that the PET’s projection of EGI is $3,157,554,which is a 5.21% increase from actual 2019 operations from the P&L report provided in evidence. I give strong weight to the PET’s Income Approach. RULING: *While CoStar has rated the subject a ‘4-star’ property (out of 5 stars), that is highly questionable given its 1988 year of construction (i.e. age of 32 years). The PAO’s evidence also giving the subject more weight as a 4-star property, which resulted in the subject’s comparison with other properties decades newer than the subject. From the photos, type of construction, amenities, and age of the development, the subject may be better categorized as ‘3-star’ and compared against others in that class in terms of the Sales Comparison Approach and cap rates. *Not that it is given much weight anyway, the PAOs’ Cost Approach (less 15% COS) would be $24.9M (rounded), which is well below the contested just value of $29,922,180. The same is true of the PAO’s Income Approach, which (after COS) results in a figure of $28,729,150. *The evidence suggests that the prior purchase price of the subject was an ‘aggressive acquisition’ for a property of the subject’s vintage (i.e. age). In fact, even the PAO’s Income Approach [for a year later in time] is still less than the December 2018 purchase price. Numerous sales presented by both parties also question the relatively high price that was paid for the subject. *After reviewing both Income Approaches, it is clear that the parties are really not far apart in their respective means of analysis. I give slightly greater weight to the PET’s presentation and pro-forma request (after a 15% COS deduction) for a recommended just value of $27,865,836, which I have rounded to $27,866,000, or $139,330/unit. In this particular case, my ruling is actually less than the December 2018 price paid of $173,250/unit, less 15% COS or $147,263/unit. Again, the income and sales data of properties more similar in age suggest that recent purchase price was aggressive and slightly above market. The PET overcame the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be reduced to $27,866,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00210: 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 2020-00210 Page 4 of 5 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by 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. 2020-00210 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00211 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00211 00254960006 DUFF & PHELPS 5665 AIRPORT RDN NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 5,808,711.00 5,808,711.00 5,808,711.00 3,827,658.00 3,827,658.00 3,827,658.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,827,658.00 3,827,658.00 3,827,658.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00211: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Naples CH, LLC.) was represented by Duff & Phelps, yet that firm did not send a representative to appear in person or on the phone. Regardless, their evidence will be considered. It is worthy to note that there two petitions being heard together (TP-211 & 212). TP-212 was actually withdrawn; however, it should not have been withdrawn because it is part of the same auto dealership. Therefore, this ruling will consider the ‘combined’ land and building sizes for the ‘whole’ property, as it is impractical & illogical to segregate them. Also, the PAO combined the two petitions in their evidence package, as they properly should have done. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an auto dealership built in 1989. The subject’s address is 5665 Airport Road North in Naples. The adjusted building area is 35,349 SF situated upon a site of 502,744 SF (i.e. 11.541 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2015 for $14,500,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 80% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted 2 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment of $11,663,260, or $330/SF of adjusted building area (i.e. both petitions combined for the ‘whole’ property). The Income Approach is not included, given it is rather difficult and subjective to accurately estimate market rent for a variety of buildings, building types associated with auto dealerships. The PAO did provide an evidence list, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts, subject aerials, tax roll sketch, regional/neighborhood analysis, subject photographs, locations map, zoning map, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), improved sales grid/map, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/back-up data for improved sales, support for impact fees, and the subject’s building card. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $25/SF, or $12,569,000. The land value estimate was based upon the 7 commercial land sale indicators. Five of the 7 land sales were developed with car dealerships; thus, this provides an excellent means of comparison for the subject. The land value appears very well supported by those sales. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements 2020-00211 Page 2 of 4 ($1,377,345), soft costs/impact fees ($737,568), site improvements/paving at $1,377,345, & entrepreneurial profit at $1,625,023 resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $17,900,000 to support the subject’s assessment. [Note: As a technical matter, I have issue with some methodology issues in the PAO’s Cost Approach; however, the net impact is not be that dramatic enough to impact the decision of this ruling. Impact fees ‘run with the land’ and are not subject to depreciation.] In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. Sale #8 s the prior sale of the subject in late 2015 for $14.5M. Even without any time adjustment, it remains highly supportive of the subject’s assessment. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $292.10-$444.28/SF. The PAO concludes $400/SF X 35,349 SF = $14,140,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The five pages of evidence submitted by the PET is considered only partially relevant and credible. This is because the operating property consists of two folios (i.e. petitions), yet the PET withdrew the rear folio/petition and submitted evidence largely related to the front folio/petition. Interestingly, the PET included the main building on the withdrawn petition (TP-212) in the evidence package for TP-211. The PET’s evidence (5 pages) only includes a Cost Approach & an aerial photograph. That approach fails to include the whole property; thus, it is not properly prepared. The PET does not provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PET added the depreciated value of the improvements ($293,644) & site improvements/paving at $151,800, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $3,451,873, which only reflects a portion of the property & does not provided a meaningful value for this hearing. RULING: The PET’s presentation is extremely weak, incomplete, and does not reflect the ‘whole’ operating property. The PET only presents a Cost Approach. It fails to address the ‘whole’ property, the ‘whole’ site, lacks impact fee consideration, and also lacks entrepreneurial profit. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. This is a major problem with a location like the subject’s, given it fronts Tamiami Trail North. Because of major deficiencies, I give no weight to the PET’s presentation. The PAO’s evidence properly related to the whole property. The PAO also prepared the Sales Comparison Approach to value in support of the assessment. Furthermore, the PAO’s land value estimate at $25/SF equates to $12,569,000, which exceeds the contested (combined) just value of $11,663,260. In other words, the land value alone supports the assessment, regardless of 35,349 SF of building area that appears to be in reasonably good condition (from the photos provided). The prior sale of the subject in 2015 for $14,500,000 also supports the assessment, given the 2020 assessment equates to 80% of that prior sales price. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00211: 2020-00211 Page 3 of 4 Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment 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. 2020-00211 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00214 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00214 56939960003 JOHNSON, EDWIN D LISA A 987 IRISCT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 2,015,841.00 2,015,841.00 2,015,841.00 1,970,041.00 1,970,041.00 1,970,041.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,970,041.00 1,970,041.00 1,970,041.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00214: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby. The Petitioners (PET), Mr. Edwin and Lisa Johnson, owners of the property, were not present, however submitted evidence to be reviewed in their absence. PAO was sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,015,841. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a vacant waterfront land parcel in a residential neighborhood. The land size is .56 acres with 143.62ft of water frontage. The subject is located on the Marco River and in a flood zone. The property is located at 987 Iris Court, Marco Island FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 33 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, 2020-00214 Page 2 of 6 limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 vacant land sales. All sales are waterfront land sales and all sales have bridge restrictions, same as the subject. The sales occurred from March 2019 to November 2019. The sales range in waterfront footage from 100 ft to 150 ft., the subject has 143.62 ft. The sales range from $10,660/FF to $23,962/FF; with an mean of $17,469/FF and a median of $16,060/FF. PAO reconciled a value at $16,000/FF x 143.62 = $2,297,920. The subject has a just value of $2,015,841 of $14,036/FF PET’s evidence was a 70-page report which consisted of an email from PET to the Value Adjustment Board (VAB), a chart of PAO’s land sales with comments on the sales, TRIM notice for the subject, letter from PET to VAB concerning evidence and statement they would be absent at the hearing. Statement from PET on the purchase of the property. PET provided The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines, adopted 11/26/02, Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Administration Program. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET made an offer on subject lot on 1/19/20 and a contract was executed on 1/29/20 for $1,750,000. PET made comments on PAO’s sales indicating the exposure of the lots and indicating that some sales are located in better neighborhoods. PET indicates the price paid at $1,750,000 is the best indicator of value. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or 2020-00214 Page 3 of 6 indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). 2020-00214 Page 4 of 6 Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted the sale of the subject in January 2020 at $1,750,000 occurred after the date of value of January 1, 2020; PAO can only analyze sales that occurred before that date. PAO indicated the property was listed as of January 1, 2020 at $1,995,000, this was a listing and not a sale and no weight was placed on the listing. PAO’s comparable sales provide a good indication of the value of the subject. PAO indicated the sale of the subject in January 2020 will be analyzed next year. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The sale contract, on the subject in January 2020, cannot be considered, as the sale took place after the date of value of January 1, 2020. PAO provided adequate vacant lot sales. If PAO’s sales # 5 and #6, the two highest sales, are removed, the average price per front foot of the remaining sales is $14,590/FF. The subject’s just value is at $14,036.00/FF is within the range of the sales. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00214: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal 2020-00214 Page 5 of 6 practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00214 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00215 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00215 54751000004 KELLEE B CHEATHAM 102 BONAIRE LN NAPLES, FL 34134✔ ✔ 7,415,897.00 5,246,300.00 5,246,300.00 2,571,428.00 2,571,428.00 2,571,428.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 2,521,428.00 2,521,428.00 2,521,428.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/20/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 10/23/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00215: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. The Petitioner (PET) was the owner of the property Ms. Kellee Cheatham. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $5,246,300. The TRIM value has changed from $7,415,897. PAO described the property as a three-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,697-sf and an adjusted building size of 5,192-sf. The adjusted size of 5,192-sf accounts for the upper levels. Also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 13,930-sf. The property was built in 1998. The property is located in an upscale gated community. The property is not located on the Gulf of Mexico, but, has a view of the gulf. The property is located at 102 Bonaire Lane, Bonita Springs FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 2020-00215 Page 2 of 7 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales consisted of a vacant parcel located in the same neighborhood as the subject and the residual value of the land of 6 improved sales. Most emphasis was placed on the vacant land sale in subject neighborhood, that occurred in February 2019; the size of this parcel is smaller than the subject at 8,138-sf and is a corner lot similar to the subject. The property sold for $307.20/sf. The remaining sales sold from January 2019 to June 2019 and range in size from 3,392-sf to 7,689-sf; the range in price is from $373.12 to $1,065.31/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $307.00/ sf or $4,276,510. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,217,047, the land value is estimated at $4,276,510 for a total cost of $5,493,557. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2019 to June 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,845-sf to 7,188-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 3,392-sf to 7,689-sf. The buildings were built from 1987 to 2016. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $911.00 to $1,522/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $1,121/sf of building area including land or $5,820,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 6-page report with the owner information, location information and characteristic of the property. Included in this report are 4 improved sales. All of PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00215 Page 3 of 7 PET provided 4 sales of properties in subject neighborhood and these sales were also utilized by PAO in their analysis. The 4 sales range in building size from 4,734-sf to 7,188-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 4,184-sf to 7,689-sf. The buildings were built from 1997 to 2013. PET did not provide any adjustments to these sales. PET indicated that a realtor, familiar with the neighborhood, provided a value for the subject at $4,300,000. PET did not provide any documentation for this value. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. 2020-00215 Page 4 of 7 (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that PET did not make adjustments to the sales provided for differences in building and lot size as well as amenities. PAO indicated the vacant land sale, that occurred just south of the subject, is a good indicator of land value in the neighborhood; this land value indicates a value of $4,276,510 for the subject land only without the building. The estimated depreciated value of the subject building is $1,217,047 for a total estimated value of $5,493,557. PAO indicated the original TRIM value was estimated at $7,415,897 and was subsequently reduced to the current market value of $5,246,300. As rebuttal, PET indicated the subject is a wood frame building built in 1998 and is an older building. PET indicated the subject lot is larger at one-and one-half lots, however the property cannot be subdivided. PET and PAO indicated the neighborhood is in transition, the older homes in the area are being torn down and new homes are being built. SM reviewed the evidence. PAO and PET provided the same improved sales, however, PET did not make adjustments to the sales for differences in the property. PAO provided 2020-00215 Page 5 of 7 a cost approach for the subject with a good indicator of land value for the subject, having a recent land sale in subject neighborhood. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00215: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. 2020-00215 Page 6 of 7 In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00215 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00227 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00227 16001000006 DOUGLAS A KINSLEY REV TRUST, GABRIE 4231 CRAYTON RD NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 3,302,910.00 3,302,910.00 3,302,910.00 2,529,990.00 2,529,990.00 2,529,990.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,529,990.00 2,529,990.00 2,529,990.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00227: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. The Petitioner (PET), Mr. Douglas Kinsley, is the owner of the subject property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,302,910. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,949-sf and an adjusted building size of 3,442-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs; these areas are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .33 acres or 15,681.6-sf. The property was built in 1996. The property is located on a waterway, with access to the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located at 4231 Crayton Road, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00227 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach, which consisted of 3 land sales in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are vacant land sales occurred from April 2019 to June 2019. The sales range in size from 14,810.4-sf to 16,988.4-sf and range in price from $190.19 to $243.07/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $220.00/sf or $3,449,952. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $20,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $229,316, the land value is estimated at $3,449,952 for a total cost of $3,699,568. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from June 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 4,250-sf to 6,104-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 14,810.4-sf to 24,829.2-sf. The buildings were built from 1985 to 2016. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $988.00 to $1,402.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $1,146/sf and a median of $1,055/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1,005/sf of building area including land or $3,631,310. PET’s evidence consisted of a 23-page report which consisted of a cover letter, survey of the subject, subject property record card and aerial of the subject. PET provided three sales, and included the property record card, aerial and listing sheet, with photographs, for each sale and a location map of the subject and comparable sales. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. All of PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 3 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. Two improved sales were presented in PAO’s evidence as Sales # 3 and #6. PET’s sales range in building size from 4,250-sf to 4,800-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .34 to .39 acres. The 2020-00227 Page 3 of 7 buildings were built from 1985 to 2000. The comparable sales sold from $3,300,000 to $3,650,000 or $721.63 to $858.82/sf of building area. PET made not adjustments to the sales. PET indicated that all three comparable sales have more water frontage than the subject with a better water view of 180-degrees, PET indicated his lot has a 90-degree water view. PET indicated the subject has 80 feet of water frontage and the 3 sales have water frontage ranging from 100ft to 125ft; PET indicated maneuvering a boat with a larger water frontage is easier than at the subject lot. PET indicated these properties are superior to the subject and that his property is worth less than the assessed value of $3,302,910. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the 2020-00227 Page 4 of 7 following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that PET did not make any adjustments to the sales as compared to the subject. PET considers the subject house a tear down. PAO indicated that the trend in the area of the subject is to build large homes that maximize the waterfrontage lot and PAO valued the lot on a square foot basis and not the waterfrontage. PAO indicated there are two bridge heights that limit the boat size for this area, to the Gulf of Mexico, and that a large boat would not be adequate for the subject or neighboring properties. As rebuttal, PET indicated that PAO’s land sales # 1 and # 3 are pie shape lots with more water frontage than the subject and open views of Venetian Bay. PET commented on PAO’s improved sales #2 and #3 are similar in land size to the subject but have better water views. 2020-00227 Page 5 of 7 Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided comparable sales in the neighborhood with one sale (Sale # 6) on the same street as the subject. Sales # 3 and # 6 are comparable in land size, building size and age. PAO made adjustments for the differences in the properties and the adjusted values range from $3,400,365 to $3,451,327 which is higher than the assessed value of $3,302,910. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00227: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser 2020-00227 Page 6 of 7 exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00227 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00233 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00233: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Pivotal Tax Solutions) was represented via telephone by Mr. Chaz Stanbage. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 320-unit apartment complex known as “Mer Soleil” built in 2002. The subject’s address is 4250 Heritage Road in Naples. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 339,500 SF situated upon a site of 28.34 acres. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2011 for $12,500,000, yet there has been a great deal of appreciation and rent increases since that low point in the economy. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $26,529,474 or $82,905/unit. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s last deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, CBRE north America Cap Rate Survey (2nd half of 2019), National Apartments Association – 2019 Survey, & RERC’s 4th Quarter 2019 South Region Rate Survey. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $13/SF X 1,234,490 SF = $16,050,000, plus $3,837,000 of impact fees for a total of $19,887,000 (which is 75.0% of the total contested just value). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 multi- family land sale indicators in Collier County. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements (inclusive of site work & entrepreneurial profit) at $22,747,424. After adding in the land value & impact fees, the resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $42,634,000 (before COS consideration). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides two different rosters of sales. The first roster is based upon 3-star properties (similar to the subject’s class of investment), and it consists of 14 apartment properties in from Collier & Lee Counties. The average price per SF is $155, while the average price per unit is $123,255 from those sales. The subject is newer than all 14 of those properties. The PAO also presents 13 properties in a 2nd grid of 4-star apartment complexes. The average figures from that 2nd grid are higher, given the quality of the properties is superior to the subject. The PAO gives most weight to the first grid of sales and estimates the subject’s value at $150,000/unit X 320 units = $48M, less TPP of $285,000 for a resulting figure of $47,715,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO notes that sales #2 & #6 2020-00233 Page 2 of 4 are close to the subject & sold for $152,000/unit, & $160,000/unit, respectively. They were given strong weight. In the Income Approach, the PAO does a detailed breakdown of the subject’s mix of units and projects market rent for each unit type/size. Total potential rental revenue is estimated at $4,989,519, other income is estimated at 8% of potential rents, vacancy/ collection loss was estimated at 7.0%, expenses [except taxes] at 30.0%, and the PAO applies a loaded cap rate of 6.7% to NOI of $3,248,177 for a value indication of $48,480,000 less TPP of $285,000 for a final Sales Comparison Approach estimate of $48,195,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 50 pages of the subject’s evidence [via 1 submittal in Axia] and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach. The PET fails to include an Income Approach for this class of asset, which is highly unusual. If there is one approach (at a minimum) that should be applied for the subject, the Income Approach is definitely the approach to be included, as this is the approach any typical buyer would use when making a purchase decision for this caliber of asset. The Sales Comparison Approach lacks any sales of the subject’s ‘vintage’ (age). Two of the sale have extremely low unit counts such that they should not have even been included when comparing to a 320-unit complex like the subject. Plus, 3 of the 5 sales presented are manufactured housing developments and the subject is not. I give NO WEIGHT to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach, as its data is irrelevant and non- comparable. The PET’s Cost Approach fails to include many of the normal items that would be associated with a professional prepared Cost Approach. It fails to include soft/indirect costs, lease-up costs expended to get to the current state of occupancy, it lacks entrepreneurial profit, it fails to include impact fees (which are very significant), and it fails to include site work (which is also very significant for a 28.34-acre site). While the PET does include land sales, they all appear to extremely low sales that likely are non- comparable. It is noted that the PET’s land value estimate was $3.13M, while the PAO’s land value estimate was $16.05M. It is hard to believe the parties could be $12.92M apart on the land value; thus, one of the parties must be extremely low. I give NO WEIGHT or significance to the PET’s Cost Approach, as it is not prepared in accordance with normal appraisal standards. RULING: The PAO presented 3 approaches to value, all which exceed $40M. The PET fails to include an Income Approach, which is highly unusual for this class of asset. While the PET did prepare a Cost Approach & a Sales Comparison Approach, I give NO WEIGHT or significance to either. The PET’s sales selected were non-comparable. The Cost Approach failed to include many key components of significant costs associated with an institutional grade (3-star) apartment complex. While the PET’s evidence was admissible, it was irrelevant and not credible. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO’s well-supported value. The PAO’s just value is upheld. 2020-00233 Page 3 of 4 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00233: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00233 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00234 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00234: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Pivotal Tax Solutions) was represented via telephone by Mr. Chaz Stanbage. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 78-unit LITCH apartment complex known as “Laurel Ridge” built in 1994. The subject’s address is 5460 Laurel Ridge Lane in in Naples. The adjusted building area is 110,234 SF situated upon a site of 6.58 acres. There are 10 apartment buildings & 1 clubhouse. All units have 3 bedrooms. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2011 for $3,320,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 2 of the 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $5,345,192, $68,528/unit. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Roster of Improved LITCH Apartment Complex sales (but did not prepare a Sales Comparison Approach), Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s last deed, ground photographs of the subject, income supportive data sheet, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, CBRE north America Cap Rate Survey (2nd half of 2019), National Apartments Association – 2019 Survey, Florida Housing Finance Corporation rent roll, & RERC’s 4th Quarter 2019 South Region Rate Survey. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $13/SF X 286,625 SF = $3,730,000, plus $935,000 of impact fees for a total of $4,665,000 (which is 87.3% of the total contested just value). The land value estimate was based upon the 10 multi- family land sale indicators in Collier County. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements (inclusive of site work & entrepreneurial profit) at $5,326,470. After adding in the land value & impact fees, the resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $9,991,000 (before COS consideration). While a relevant approach that can be presented, the Cost Approach is given very little weight for this class of LITCH asset, as will be discussed later. The PAO does not officially prepare a Sales Comparison Approach. However, the PAO does provide a roster of 9 LITCH sales in Collier County between 2015 – 2019 with an average price per unit of $108,490. The contested just value is only $68,528/unit by comparison & all of the subject units are reasonably large 3-bedroom units. There is no Sales Comparison Approach conclusion by the PAO (and none is implied). The chart of LITCH sales is just an observation for informational purposes only. In the Income Approach, the PAO only has to consider one unit size (3-bed units). Total potential rental revenue is estimated at $1,067,040, other income is estimated at 8% of potential rents, vacancy/collection loss was estimated at 5.0%, expenses [except taxes] at 2020-00234 Page 2 of 4 55.0% [high given rents are controlled], and the PAO applies a loaded cap rate of 9% to NOI of $492,652 for a value indication of $5,474,000 less TPP of $10,000 for a final Income Approach estimate of $5,464,000. I give primary weight to the PAO’s Income Approach. In this case, I do not consider any further COS warranted, given the PAO already applied an additional risk rate to ‘load’ into the cap rate applied. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 61 pages of the subject’s evidence [via 1 submittal in Axia] and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach. While relevant approaches that can be presented, the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach are given very little weight for this class of LITCH asset, as will be discussed in the next paragraph. The PET fails to include an Income Approach for this class of asset, which is a CRITICAL ERROR by a PET trying to lower an assessment of this type of property. If there is one approach (at a minimum) that should be applied for the subject, the Income Approach is definitely the approach to be included, as this is the approach any typical buyer would use when making a purchase decision for this caliber of asset because of the income restrictions attached to its creation & tax benefits. In the State of Florida, there is specific law (F.S. 193.017) that applies to the assessment of LITCH properties. Specifically, the law states, “The actual rental income from rent- restricted units in such a property shall be recognized by the property appraiser.” RULING: The PAO officials defended their assessment by including the Income Approach, as REQUIRED by Florida law. While other approaches can be included, the results of those approaches are far less relevant and secondary to the Income Approach. It has been my experience hearing LITCH properties that there can be wide variance between the Income Approach and other approaches that may be employed. Thus, the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach are typically given very little weight. There is no need for this ruling to include a detailed analysis or criticism of the PET’s Cost Approach or Sales Comparison Approach, given the PET does not also include an Income Approach, as required by F.S. 193.017. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO given the PAO followed Florida law & the PET did not. The PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00234: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established 2020-00234 Page 3 of 4 a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00234 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00236 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00236 00199283000 JERRY AUCOIN, CMI 5420 JULIETBLVD NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 20,549,931.00 20,549,931.00 20,549,931.00 20,315,900.00 20,315,900.00 20,315,900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,315,900.00 20,315,900.00 20,315,900.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/27/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/29/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00236: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Jerry Aucoin (an employee of Wal Mart). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a WalMart Supercenter built in 2005 with a later 5,192 SF liquor store addition in 2017. The subject’s address is 5420 Juliet Boulevard in Naples. The subject is located at the SW quadrant of the Immokalee Road/I-75 interchange, which gives the subject very good access and visibility. The adjusted building area is 209,373 SF situated upon a site of 1,034,910 SF (i.e. 23.76 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2004 as a land purchase for $12.5M, or $12.08/SF of site area. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $20,549,931, or $98.15/SF of adjusted building area, or $19.86/SF of land area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, building permit history, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from PwC, Avison Young, & The Boulder Group. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $18/SF, plus $3.41M of impact fees for a total of $22.04M (which is $1.49M more than the total contested just value). However, the PAO’s land estimate appears aggressive from the sales presented, given the subject site is so large. The land value estimate was mainly based upon 10 commercial land sales, along with 5 other ‘notable’ sales provided by the PAO further back in time. Many of the large users include auto dealerships and some other big box retail stores. The subject is in close proximity to an I-75 interchange, which enables the subject to draw patrons from a large driving radius with easy access. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the value of the improvements, site work, indirect costs, & entrepreneurial profit for a total of $18,788,307. Next, the PAO deducted 26.1% depreciation of $4,906,188, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $36,740,000 to support the subject’s assessment. . As a test of reasonableness, I checked the PAO’s Cost Approach by using the land value component of $12.08/SF (i.e. $12,500,000) originally paid for the site back in 2004 [in the prior real estate boom] & the resulting total was still very substantial at $29,997,000. This is almost $9.5M greater than the contested just value of $20,549,931. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 sales located in Collier, Lee, & Charlotte Counties that closed between 2013 – late 2018. All 2020-00236 Page 2 of 4 were ‘big box’ sales that ranged in size from 30,585 SF to a high of 126,880 SF, while the subject is much larger at 209,373 SF. The two largest sales closed for $207/SF (in 2018) & $148/SF (in 3/2016). The mean and median of the sales prices were $146/SF & $143/SF, respectively. Accounting for some degree of price appreciation in the market, the PAO estimates $160/SF for the subject, or $33.5M (before COS consideration). The quantity of building sales of this size is limited in Southwest Florida; thus, the PAO had to consider other SW Florida counties & could have also considered Southeast FL or even the Tampa Bay area if necessary. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $14/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.45% [6.25% + 1.2% millage rate] to NOI of $2,088,496 for a value indication of $28,034,000, or $133.90/SF. The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches to a point estimate of $32.99M in support of the contested just value of $20,549,931. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a summary page (requesting a just value of $15,729,069), roster 11 big box sales in Florida plus 1 listing, 8 large lease comps in FL (2019), 7 cap rate comps in Florida, a pro-forma Income Approach, 71 fee simple (former big box) sales throughout the US, and CoStar back-up data to various sales and rent comparables throughout Florida [from PET’s prior chart]. The PET also submitted a February 7, 2020 ‘Big Box Transaction Data Analysis” report (over 65 pages) prepared for WalMart by RERC. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.50/SF, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, (5% management & 5% reserves), and a high unloaded cap rate of 8.5% applied to NOI of $1,342,605. The PET concludes a value of $15,795,345. (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of 11 improved sales & 1 current listing throughout the State of FL. One sale was in Bonita Springs, yet the rest were located out of SW Florida. The average of the 12 sale (or listing) indicators was $34.94/SF of building area. RULING: The PET’s presentation is weak when it comes to a property like the subject located at an interstate interchange within a very viable market area. While the PET’s data could be quite relevant to properties in rural locations, or locations in declining areas of various cities, that is not the case for the subject property. Even without the vertical building or site work, the subject site sold for $12.5M back in 2004. Plus, there are impact fees (that run with the land) in place valued at $3.41M. That equates to $15.91M, which is greater than the $15,795,345 just value requested by the PET. Arguably, the subject’s land value is now worth more than $12.5M (as the PAO estimates at $18.63M, which is probably excessive), but there still is value to the site work and building of 209,373 SF that is (mostly) 15 years old and still in above average condition. In fact, it is illogical that the PET argues the building has virtually no value and argues is an over-improvement after they just made an addition in 2017. While there are a variety of issues related to competition from on-line sales, downsizing 2020-00236 Page 3 of 4 of many retailers’ brick & mortar stores, there is still a great deal of value in the land, plus additional value and utility in the structure within the foreseeable future. Again, there are many examples nationwide (and even in Florida) where that may not be the case, but not at the subject’s location. While the PAO’s Income presentation may have some minor deficiencies of support, the PAO’s data strongly suggest more than sufficient value is in place to cover the contested just value and COS consideration. This is because the PAO presents many land sales from the general area, impact fee calculations, and photographs of the building. Land is the basic building block of value and H&BU. The PET fails to adequately consider H&BU, which is one of the 8 Criteria [i.e. F.S. 193.011 (2)]. It is highly probable that the prevailing land values associated with most of the PET’s improved roster of 12 sale properties is far less than the subject’s land value. Another aspect has to do with the buying power (household income) of the local residents. Collier County is not suffering with inadequate buying power and its overall demographics are strong, especially for a location at a major interstate interchange that allows shoppers easy access from more distant locations. Simply stated, the PET’s desired value falls below the value of impact fees & what was paid for the land 16 years ago. Furthermore, there is a very large building in place that appears to have many more viable years of service available. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00236: 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. 2020-00236 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00237 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00237 81076000040 JERRY AUCOIN, CMI 6650 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114✔ ✔ 18,493,192.00 18,493,192.00 18,493,192.00 17,912,081.00 17,912,081.00 17,912,081.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,912,081.00 17,912,081.00 17,912,081.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/27/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/29/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00237: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Jerry Aucoin (an employee of WalMart). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a WalMart Supercenter built in 2007. The subject’s address is 6650 Collier Boulevard in Naples. The subject is located in the vicinity of the SE quadrant of Tamiami Trail East & Collier Boulevard. The adjusted building area is 201,783 SF situated upon a site of 1,235,362 SF (i.e. 28.36 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject not recently sold since the site was acquired over 13 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $18,493,192, or $91.65/SF of adjusted building area, or $14.97/SF of land area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, building permit history, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from PwC, Avison Young, & The Boulder Group. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $12/SF, plus $3.287M of impact fees for a total of $18.107M (which is just $386,192 less than the total contested just value). However, the PAO’s land estimate appears slightly aggressive from the sales presented, given the subject site is so large. The land value estimate was mainly based upon 10 commercial land sales, along with 5 other ‘notable’ sales provided by the PAO further back in time. Many of the large users include auto dealerships and some other big box retail stores. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the value of the improvements, site work, indirect costs, & entrepreneurial profit for a total of $18,242,339. Next, the PAO deducted 22.3% depreciation of $4,073,977, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $32,750,000 to support the subject’s assessment. As a test of reasonableness, I checked the PAO’s Cost Approach by cutting the PAO’s land value in half (i.e. to $6.00/ SF) to $14,820,000 & the resulting total was still very substantial at $24,124,000. This is more than $5.6M greater than the contested just value of $18,493,192. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 sales located in Collier, Lee, & Charlotte Counties that closed between 2013 – late 2018. All were ‘big box’ sales that ranged in size from 30,585 SF to a high of 126,880 SF, while the subject is much larger at 201,783 SF. The two largest sales closed for $207/SF (in 2018) & $148/SF (in 3/2016). The mean and median of the sales prices were $146/SF & 2020-00237 Page 2 of 4 $143/SF, respectively. Accounting for some degree of price appreciation in the market, the PAO estimates $150/SF for the subject, or $30.267M (before COS consideration). The quantity of building sales of this size is limited in Southwest Florida; thus, the PAO had to consider other SW Florida counties & could have also considered Southeast FL, or even the Tampa Bay area if necessary. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $13/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.45% [6.25% + 1.2% millage rate] to NOI of $1,869,015 for a value indication of $25,087,000, or $124.33/SF (before a COS deduction). The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches to a point estimate of $29.42M in support of the contested just value of $18,493,192. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a summary page (requesting a just value of $15,818,030), roster 11 big box sales in Florida plus 1 listing, 8 large lease comps in FL (2019), 7 cap rate comps in Florida, a pro-forma Income Approach, 71 fee simple (former big box) sales throughout the US, and CoStar back-up data to various sales and rent comparables throughout Florida [from PET’s prior chart]. The PET also submitted a February 7, 2020 ‘Big Box Transaction Data Analysis” report (over 65 pages) prepared for WalMart by RERC. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.50/SF, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, (5% management & 5% reserves), and a very high cap rate (unloaded) of 8.5% applied to NOI of $1,293,933. The PET concludes a value of $15,222,747. (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of 11 improved sales & 1 current listing throughout the State of FL. One sale was in Bonita Springs, yet the rest were located out of SW Florida. The average of the 12 sale improved indicators was $34.94/SF of building area. RULING: The PET’s presentation is weak when it comes to a property like the subject located very close to a major intersection of Naples in a very viable market area. While the PET’s data could be quite relevant to properties in rural locations, or locations in declining areas of various cities, that is not the case for the subject property. The area near the subject (especially to the north) is experiencing steady growth. There are significant impact fees (that run with the land) valued at $3.41M. Even if the PAO’s land value were cut in half (i.e. from $12/SF to $6/SF), the resulting Cost Approach would still be very close to $18.5M resulting in 77% SAR, which is more than enough to justify the PAO’s assessment. There still is value to the site work and building of 201,783 SF that is only 13 years old and still in respectable condition. In fact, it is illogical that the PET argues the building has virtually no value and argues is an over-improvement after they just made an addition to a similar size Supercenter (i.e. the subject of petition 2020-236) in 2017. While there are a variety of issues related to competition from on-line sales, downsizing of many retailers’ brick & mortar stores, there is still a great deal of value in the land, plus additional value and utility in the structure within the foreseeable future in this 2020-00237 Page 3 of 4 growing area. Again, there are many examples nationwide (and even in Florida) where that may not be the case, but not at the subject’s location. While the PAO’s Income presentation may have some minor deficiencies of support, the PAO’s data strongly suggest more than sufficient value is in place to cover the contested just value and COS consideration. This is because the PAO presents many land sales from the general area, impact fee calculations, and photographs of the building. Land is the basic building block of value and H&BU. The PET fails to adequately consider H&BU, which is one of the 8 Criteria [i.e. F.S. 193.011 (2)]. It is highly probable that the prevailing land values associated with most of the PET’s improved roster of 12 sale properties are less than the subject’s land value. Another aspect has to do with the buying power (household income) of the local residents. Collier County is not suffering with inadequate buying power and its overall demographics are strong, especially for a location that Marco Island residents would frequent when going to/from I-75. Simply stated, the PET’s desired value falls well below what would be considered reasonable for a viable property that has good economic buying power and not experiencing any significant problems in its real estate market. In facts, Collier County is on a steady growth path as more people continue to move to the State of Florida. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00237: 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. 2020-00237 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00238 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00238 59712000488 JERRY AUCOIN, CMI 9885 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 17,930,491.00 17,930,491.00 17,930,491.00 17,269,612.00 17,269,612.00 17,269,612.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,269,612.00 17,269,612.00 17,269,612.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/27/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/29/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00238: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Jerry Aucoin (an employee of WalMart). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a WalMart Supercenter built in 2004. The subject’s address is 9985 Collier Boulevard in Naples. The subject is located in the vicinity of the SW quadrant of I-75 and Collier Boulevard, just south of Radio Road. The adjusted building area is 203,622 SF situated upon a site of 1,043,250 SF (i.e. 23.95 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject not recently sold since the site was acquired over 16 years ago. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $17,930,491, or $88.06/SF of adjusted building area, or $17.19/SF of land area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, building permit history, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from PwC, Avison Young, & The Boulder Group. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $12/SF, plus $3.317M of impact fees for a total of $15.837M (which is 11.7% less than the total contested just value). However, the PAO’s land estimate appears slightly aggressive from the sales presented, given the subject site is so large. The land value estimate was mainly based upon 10 commercial land sales, along with 5 other ‘notable’ sales provided by the PAO further back in time. Many of the large users include auto dealerships and some other big box retail stores. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the value of the improvements, site work, indirect costs, & entrepreneurial profit for a total of $18,162,434. Next, the PAO deducted 26.4% depreciation of $4,795,534, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $29,204,000 to support the subject’s assessment. As a test of reasonableness, I checked the PAO’s Cost Approach by cutting the PAO’s land value in half (i.e. to $6.00/ SF) to $6,260,000 & the resulting total was still very substantial at $22,318,000. This is more than $4.38M greater than the contested just value of $17,930,491. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 sales located in Collier, Lee, & Charlotte Counties that closed between 2013 – late 2018. All were ‘big box’ sales that ranged in size from 30,585 SF to a high of 126,880 SF, while the subject is much larger at 203,622 SF. The two largest sales closed for $207/SF (in 2018) & $148/SF (in 3/2016). The mean and median of the sales prices were $146/SF & 2020-00238 Page 2 of 5 $143/SF, respectively. Accounting for some degree of price appreciation in the market, the PAO estimates $150/SF for the subject, or $30.543M (before COS consideration). The quantity of building sales of this size is limited in Southwest Florida; thus, the PAO had to consider other SW Florida counties & could have also considered Southeast FL, or even the Tampa Bay area if necessary. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $13/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.45% [6.25% + 1.2% millage rate] to NOI of $1,886,049 for a value indication of $25,316,000, or $124.33/SF (before a COS deduction). The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches to a point estimate of $28.51M in support of the contested just value of $17,930,491. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a summary page (requesting a just value of $14,533,845), roster 11 big box sales in Florida plus 1 listing, 8 large lease comps in FL (2019), 7 cap rate comps in Florida, a pro-forma Income Approach, 71 fee simple (former big box) sales throughout the US, and CoStar back-up data to various sales and rent comparables throughout Florida [from PET’s prior chart]. The PET also submitted a February 7, 2020 ‘Big Box Transaction Data Analysis” report (over 65 pages) prepared for WalMart by RERC. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.50/SF, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, (5% management & 5% reserves), and a very high cap rate (unloaded) of 8.5% applied to NOI of $1,305,726. The PET concludes a value of $15,361,483. (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of 11 improved sales & 1 current listing throughout the State of FL. One sale was in Bonita Springs, yet the rest were located out of SW Florida. The average of the 12 sale improved indicators was $34.94/SF of building area. RULING: The PET’s presentation is weak when it comes to a property like the subject located close to a major interchange with I-75 in a very viable market area. While the PET’s data could be quite relevant to properties in rural locations, or locations in declining areas of various cities, that is not the case for the subject property. The area near the subject (especially to the north) is experiencing steady growth. There are significant impact fees (that run with the land) valued at $3.317M. Even if the PAO’s land value were cut in half (i.e. from $12/SF to $6/SF), the resulting Cost Approach would still be very close to $22.32M resulting in 80% SAR, which is more than enough to justify the PAO’s assessment. There still is value to the site work and building of 203,622 SF that is only 16 years old and still in respectable condition. In fact, it is illogical that the PET argues the building has virtually no value and argues is an over- improvement after they just made an addition to a similar size Supercenter (i.e. the subject of petition 2020-236) in 2017. While there are a variety of issues related to competition from on-line sales, downsizing of many retailers’ brick & mortar stores, there is still a great deal of value in the land, plus additional value and utility in the structure within the foreseeable future in this 2020-00238 Page 3 of 5 growing area. Again, there are many examples nationwide (and even in Florida) where that may not be the case, but not at the subject’s location. While the PAO’s Income presentation may have some minor deficiencies of support, the PAO’s data strongly suggest more than sufficient value is in place to cover the contested just value and COS consideration. This is because the PAO presents many land sales from the general area, impact fee calculations, and photographs of the building. Land is the basic building block of value and H&BU. The PET fails to adequately consider H&BU, which is one of the 8 Criteria [i.e. F.S. 193.011 (2)]. It is highly probable that the prevailing land values associated with most of the PET’s improved roster of 12 sale properties are less than the subject’s land value. Another aspect has to do with the buying power (household income) of the local residents. Collier County is not suffering with inadequate buying power and its overall demographics are strong, especially for a location that Marco Island residents would frequent when going to/from I-75. Simply stated, the PET’s desired value falls well below what would be considered reasonable for a viable property that has good economic buying power and not experiencing any significant problems in its real estate market. In fact, Collier County is on a steady growth path as more people continue to move to the State of Florida. The PAO’s value request equates to $13.93/SF of the site area. PAO’s ‘notable sale #11’ of 13.275 acres was purchased for a Lowe’s big box store not that far south of the subject. It closed for $16.43/SF back in 2009, after the financial markets had crashed. It is highly supportive of the subject’s total assessment (even without impact fees considered). The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00238: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment 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 2020-00238 Page 4 of 5 just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 2020-00238 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00239 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00239 00390080002 JERRY AUCOIN, CMI 3451 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 11,736,847.00 11,736,847.00 11,736,847.00 10,966,922.00 10,966,922.00 10,966,922.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,966,922.00 10,966,922.00 10,966,922.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/28/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/29/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00239: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Jerry Aucoin (an employee of WalMart). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a WalMart built in 1993. The subject’s address is 3451 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. The subject is located adjacent to the Collier County Courthouse complex & governmental offices. The adjusted building area is 126,837 SF situated upon a site of 749,632 SF (i.e. 17.21 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold since the site was acquired 27 years ago in 1992 for $9.24/SF ($6,923,650). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $11,736,847, or $92.53/SF of adjusted building area, or $15.66/SF of land area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, building permit history, subject’s last deed, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from PwC, Avison Young, & The Boulder Group. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $12/SF, plus $2.142M of impact fees for a total of $13.382M (which is 14% GREATER THAN the contested just value of $11,736,847. The PAO’s land estimate does not appear to be unreasonable, given the site sold 27 years ago for $9.24/SF. The land value estimate was mainly based upon 10 commercial land sales. Big box land sales with similar H&BU include Kohls ($15.48/SF in 2007) & Best Buy ($14.11/SF back in 2002); thus, the subject’s land value estimate at $12/SF appears reasonably well supported. Several of the other large land buyers include auto dealerships that often compete for visible sites of the subject’s size. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the value of the improvements, site work, indirect costs, & entrepreneurial profit for a total of $11,741,166. Next, the PAO deducted 49.5% depreciation of $5,806,666, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $19,316,000 to support the subject’s assessment. As stated previously, the PAO’s land value + impact fees combine for $13.382M, which is sufficient to support the contested just value with ample COS consideration. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 sales located in Collier, Lee, & Charlotte Counties that closed between 2013 – late 2018. All were ‘big box’ sales that ranged in size from 30,585 SF to a high of 126,880 SF, while the subject’s size is at the top of that range. The two largest sales closed for $207/SF (in 2018) & $148/SF (in 3/2016). The mean and median of the sales prices were $146/SF & $143/SF, respectively. Accounting for some degree of price appreciation in the market, 2020-00239 Page 2 of 4 the PAO estimates $150/SF for the subject, or $19.316M (before COS consideration). The quantity of building sales of this size is limited in Southwest Florida; thus, the PAO had to consider other SW Florida counties & could have also considered Southeast FL, or even the Tampa Bay area if necessary. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $13/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.45% [6.25% + 1.2% millage rate] to NOI of $1,174,828 for a value indication of $15,769,000, or $124/SF (before a COS deduction). The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches to a point estimate of $28.51M in support of the contested just value of $18,150,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a summary page (requesting a just value of $8,878,590), roster 11 big box sales in Florida plus 1 listing, 8 large lease comps in FL (2019), 7 cap rate comps in Florida, a pro-forma Income Approach, 71 fee simple (former big box) sales throughout the US, and CoStar back-up data to various sales and rent comparables throughout Florida [from PET’s prior chart]. The PET also submitted a February 7, 2020 ‘Big Box Transaction Data Analysis” report (over 65 pages) prepared for WalMart by RERC. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.00/SF, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, (5% management & 5% reserves), and a very high cap rate (unloaded) of 8.75% applied to NOI of $759,119. PET concludes a value of $8,675,651 (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of 11 improved sales & 1 current listing throughout the State of FL. One sale was in Bonita Springs, yet the rest were located outside of SW Florida. The average of the 12 sale improved indicators was $34.94/SF of building area. RULING: The PET’s presentation is weak because land is the basic building block of value and H&BU. The PET fails to adequately consider H&BU, which is one of the 8 Criteria [i.e. F.S. 193.011 (2)]. It is highly probable that the prevailing land values associated with most of the PET’s improved roster of 12 sale properties are less than the subject’s land value. Another aspect has to do with the buying power (household income) of the local residents. Collier County is not suffering with inadequate buying power and its overall demographics are relatively strong by comparison with many other Florida counties. The PAO’s land value + impact fees combine for $13.382M, which is sufficient to support the contested just value with ample COS consideration. There still is value to the site work and 27 year-old building of 126,837 SF. In fact, it is illogical that the PET argues the building has virtually no value and argues is an over-improvement after WalMart made an even larger super center (i.e. the subject of petition 2020-236) in 2017. While there are a variety of issues related to competition from on-line sales, downsizing of many retailers’ brick & mortar stores, there is still a great deal of value in the land, plus additional value and utility in the structure within the foreseeable future. Again, there are many examples nationwide (and even in Florida) where that may not be the 2020-00239 Page 3 of 4 case, but not at the subject’s location. The PAO’s data strongly suggest more than sufficient value exists to cover the contested just value and COS consideration. This is because the PAO presents many land sales from the general area, impact fee calculations, and photographs of the building that show it to be useful. Simply stated, the PET’s desired value falls well below what would be considered reasonable because it falls below the land value (with inherent impact fees that ‘run with the land’). The PET’s value request equates to $11.84/SF of the site area. That is less than the subject’s site purchase 27 years ago + impact fees, which combine for $12.09/SF of site area. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00239: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00239 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00240 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00240 00157481501 JERRY AUCOIN, CMI 11225 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34110✔ ✔ 11,391,177.00 11,391,177.00 11,391,177.00 10,654,788.00 10,654,788.00 10,654,788.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,654,788.00 10,654,788.00 10,654,788.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/28/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/29/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00240: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Jerry Aucoin (an employee of WalMart). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a WalMart super center (but smaller than their typical super center) built in 1993 with a subsequent main building expansion of about 10,000 SF in 2011. There was also a liquor store addition in 2016. The subject’s address is 11225 Tamiami Trail North in Naples. The subject is located at the NW quadrant of the Tamiami Trail/Immokalee Road intersection. The adjusted building area is 144,478 SF situated upon a site of 733,328 SF (i.e. 16.83 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold since the site was acquired 27.5 years ago in mid-1992 for $7.30/SF ($5,353,900). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $11,391,177, or $78.84/SF of adjusted building area, or $15.53/SF of land area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, building permit history, subject’s last deed, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from PwC, Avison Young, & The Boulder Group. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $18/SF, plus $2.44M of impact fees for a total of $13.382M (which is 37.3% GREATER THAN the contested just value of $11,391,177. The PAO’s land estimate appears to be a little aggressive. The land value estimate was mainly based upon 10 commercial land sales with 5 other ‘notable’ sales mentioned. Big box land sales with similar H&BU include Kohls ($15.48/ SF in 2007) & Best Buy ($14.11/SF back in 2002) in more of a power center retail/ commercial environment. Several other large land buyers include auto dealerships that often compete for visible sites of the subject’s size. There was a 2016 sale of an 11.467- acre site to an auto dealer for $17.02/SF, which was also in that power center on Naples Boulevard. It is noted that Land Sale #6 is very close to the subject on Tamiami Trail North & its 3.4 acres sold for $30.38/SF. While it is a much smaller site, it (arguably) could justify the PAO’s $18/SF estimate, but $18/SF land value still appears aggressive for a site of this size. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the value of the improvements, site work, indirect costs, & entrepreneurial profit for a total of $13,285,233. Next, the PAO deducted 50.9% depreciation of $6,543,941, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $22,381,000 to support the subject’s assessment. As stated previously, the PAO’s land value appears aggressive. However, at $12.25/SF the combined site area + impact fees 2020-00240 Page 2 of 5 would basically equal the contested just value. It appears logical the site work & depreciated vertical improvements still do contribute to value, especially given WalMart has had 2 additions to this building in the past decade. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 sales located in Collier, Lee, & Charlotte Counties that closed between 2013 – late 2018. All were ‘big box’ sales that ranged in size from 30,585 SF to a high of 126,880 SF, while the subject’s size is slightly above the top of that range. The two largest sales closed for $207/SF (in 2018) & $148/SF (in 3/2016). The mean and median of the sales prices were $146/SF & $143/SF, respectively. Accounting for some degree of price appreciation in the market, the PAO estimates $150/SF for the subject, or $21.672M (before COS consideration). The quantity of building sales of this size is limited in Southwest Florida; thus, the PAO had to consider other SW Florida counties & could have also considered Southeast FL, or even the Tampa Bay area if necessary. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $13/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.45% [6.25% + 1.2% millage rate] to NOI of $1,338,227 for a value indication of $17,963,000, or $124/SF (before a COS deduction). The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches to a point estimate of $20.81M in support of the contested just value of $11,391,177 (which is only $15.53/SF of site area). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a summary page (requesting a just value of $9,023,333), roster 11 big box sales in Florida plus 1 listing, 8 large lease comps in FL (2019), 7 cap rate comps in Florida, a pro-forma Income Approach, 71 fee simple (former big box) sales throughout the US, and CoStar back-up data to various sales and rent comparables throughout Florida [from PET’s prior chart]. The PET also submitted a February 7, 2020 ‘Big Box Transaction Data Analysis” report (over 65 pages) prepared for WalMart by RERC. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $6.50/SF, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, (5% management & 5% reserves), and a very high cap rate (unloaded) of 8.75%. The PET had a typo in his building size by using a building area of 144,748 SF, which should have been 144,478 SF. Thus, the PET’s corrected expenses (at 10%) should have been $89,215 resulting in corrected NOI of $802,936. After applying the high cap rate of 8.75%, the PET should have then concluded a value of $9,176,417 (before any COS deduction), not $9,193,566. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of 11 improved sales & 1 current listing throughout the State of FL. One sale was in Bonita Springs, yet the rest were located outside of SW Florida. The average of the 12 sale improved indicators was $34.94/SF of building area. RULING: The PET’s presentation is very weak because land is the basic building block of value and H&BU. The PET fails to adequately consider H&BU, which is one of the 8 Criteria [i.e. F.S. 193.011 (2)]. It is highly probable that the prevailing land values associated with most of the PET’s improved roster of 12 sale properties are less than the subject’s land value. Another aspect has to do with the buying power (household income) 2020-00240 Page 3 of 5 of the local residents. Collier County is not suffering with inadequate buying power and its overall demographics are relatively strong by comparison with many other Florida counties. The PAO’s land value (at $18/SF) + impact fees combine for $15.64M, which is more than sufficient to support the contested just value with ample COS consideration. Interestingly enough, even if the land purchase price of $7.30/SF (from 27.5 years ago) were used, the PAO’s Cost Approach still would have supported the contested just value with an SAR of 82.9%. There still is value to the site work and 27 year-old building of 144,478 SF. In fact, it is illogical that the PET argues the building has virtually no value and argues is an over-improvement after WalMart made two additions to this subject (and another WalMart subject of petition 2020-236) during the past decade. While there are a variety of issues related to competition from on-line sales, downsizing of many retailers’ brick & mortar stores, there is still a great deal of value in the land, plus additional value and utility in the structure within the foreseeable future. Again, there are many examples nationwide (and even in Florida) where that may not be the case, but not at the subject’s location. The PAO’s data strongly suggest more than sufficient value exists to cover the contested just value and COS consideration. This is because the PAO presents many land sales from the general area, impact fee calculations, and photographs of the building that show it to be useful. Simply stated, the PET’s desired value falls well below what would be considered reasonable. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00240: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to 2020-00240 Page 4 of 5 comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 2020-00240 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00241 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00241 00165640004 JERRY AUCOIN, CMI 2550 IMMOKALEE RD NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 10,735,202.00 10,735,202.00 10,735,202.00 10,188,501.00 10,188,501.00 10,188,501.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,188,501.00 10,188,501.00 10,188,501.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/28/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00241: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Jerry Aucoin (an employee of WalMart). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Sam’s Club built in 1992 with a subsequent additions through 2009 of 10,370 SF of space to the original construction of 132,692 SF in 1992. The subject’s address is 2550 Immokalee Road in Naples. The subject is located at the SE quadrant of Immokalee Road & Airport Road North. The combined traffic count at this intersection is 83,500 trips/day, which is very hig. The combined adjusted building area is 143,062 SF situated upon a site of 587,674 SF (i.e. 13.49 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold since the site was acquired 28 years ago in late 1991 for $8.31/SF ($4,884,200). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $10,735,202, or $79.62/SF of adjusted building area, or $19.38/SF of land area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, building permit history, subject’s last deed, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & lease comp sheets from CoStar. A chart is also provided related to drug store cap rates and expenses from PwC, Avison Young, & The Boulder Group. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $20/SF, plus $2.325M of impact fees for a total of $14.075M (which is 31.1% GREATER THAN the contested just value of $10,735,202. The PAO’s land estimate appears to be a little aggressive. The land value estimate was mainly based upon 10 commercial land sales with 5 other ‘notable’ sales mentioned. Big box land sales with similar H&BU include Kohls ($15.48/ SF in 2007) & Best Buy ($14.11/SF back in 2002) in more of a power center retail/ commercial environment. Several other large land buyers include auto dealerships that often compete for visible sites of the subject’s size. There was a 2016 sale of an 11.467- acre site to an auto dealer for $17.02/SF, which was also in that power center on Naples Boulevard. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the value of the improvements, site work, indirect costs, & entrepreneurial profit for a total of $9,756,064. Next, the PAO deducted 47.7% depreciation of $4,654,414, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $19,177,000 to support the subject’s assessment. As stated previously, the PAO’s land value appears aggressive. However, at $14.30/SF the combined site area + impact fees would basically equal the contested just value. It appears logical the site work & depreciated vertical improvements still do contribute to value, especially given the 2020-00241 Page 2 of 4 subject has had additions to this building in the past decade. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 sales located in Collier, Lee, & Charlotte Counties that closed between 2013 – late 2018. All were ‘big box’ sales that ranged in size from 30,585 SF to a high of 126,880 SF, while the subject’s size is slightly above the top of that range. The two largest sales closed for $207/SF (in 2018) & $148/SF (in 3/2016). The mean and median of the sales prices were $146/SF & $143/SF, respectively. Accounting for some degree of price appreciation in the market, the PAO estimates $150/SF for the subject’s main ‘big box of 132,692 SF for a value indication of $19.904M (before COS consideration). The quantity of building sales of this size is limited in Southwest Florida; thus, the PAO had to consider other SW Florida counties & could have also considered Southeast FL, or even the Tampa Bay area if necessary. The PAO could have given additional value credit to 10,370 SF of ancillary additions constructed after the original construction. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $13/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.45% [6.25% + 1.2% millage rate] to NOI of $1,229,060 for a value indication of $16,497,000, or $124/SF (before a COS deduction). The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches to a point estimate of $18.63M in support of the contested just value of $10,735,202 (which is only $15.53/SF of site area). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a summary page (requesting a just value of $8,539,317, roster 11 big box sales in Florida plus 1 listing, 8 large lease comps in FL (2019), 7 cap rate comps in Florida, a pro-forma Income Approach, 71 fee simple (former big box) sales throughout the US, and CoStar back-up data to various sales and rent comparables throughout Florida [from PET’s prior chart]. The PET also submitted a February 7, 2020 ‘Big Box Transaction Data Analysis” report (over 65 pages) prepared for WalMart by RERC. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $6.50/SF, 5% vacancy, 10% expenses, (5% management & 5% reserves), and a very high cap rate (unloaded) of 8.75% applied to NOI of $737,436 resulting in a value of $8,427,838 (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a long roster of 11 improved sales & 1 current listing throughout the State of FL. One sale was in Bonita Springs, yet the rest were located outside of SW Florida. The average of the 12 sale improved indicators was $34.94/SF of building area. RULING: The PET’s presentation is very weak because land is the basic building block of value and H&BU. The PET fails to adequately consider H&BU, which is one of the 8 Criteria [i.e. F.S. 193.011 (2)]. It is highly probable that the prevailing land values associated with most of the PET’s improved roster of 12 sale properties are less than the subject’s land value. Another aspect has to do with the buying power (household income) of the local residents. Collier County is not suffering with inadequate buying power and its overall demographics are relatively strong by comparison with most other Florida counties. The PAO’s land value (at $20/SF) + impact fees combine for $14.075M, which 2020-00241 Page 3 of 4 is more than sufficient to support the contested just value with ample COS consideration. Interestingly enough, even if the land purchase price of $8.31/SF (from 28 years ago) were used, the PAO’s Cost Approach still would have exceeded the contested just value with an SAR of 92.4%. There still is value to the site work and 28 year-old buildings that exceed 144,000 SF. In fact, it is illogical that the PET argues the building has virtually no value and argues is an over-improvement after WalMart made additions to this subject (and several other WalMart properties petitioned on this same hearing date) during the past decade. While there are a variety of issues related to competition from on-line sales, downsizing of many retailers’ brick & mortar stores, there is still a great deal of value in the land, plus additional value and utility in the structure within the foreseeable future. Again, there are many examples nationwide (and even in Florida) where that may not be the case, but not at the subject’s location. The PAO’s data strongly suggest more than sufficient value exists to cover the contested just value and COS consideration. This is because the PAO presents many land sales from the general area, impact fee calculations, and photographs of the building that show it to be useful. Simply stated, the PET’s desired value (which equals $14.53/SF of land area) falls well below what would be considered reasonable. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00241: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00241 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00249 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00249: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) representing the owner is Paradigm (Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak) via telephone. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a PNC branch bank built in 1989. The subject’s address is 9190 Galleria Court in Naples. This location is at the Northwest quadrant of Airport Road North & Galleria Drive and across the street from a non- anchored shopping center with a gym. The adjusted building area is 3,436 SF (without the drive-thru canopy) situated upon a site of 34,848 SF (i.e. 0.80 acres) zoned PUD. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the past 15+ years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $1,328,506, or $386.64/SF of adjusted building area, or $38.12/SF of site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, possible witness list of PAO employees, aerial photographs, subject’s building sketch, exterior and interior photographs, location map, street location map, zoning map, regional & neighborhood market analysis, land sales summary grid, land sale location map, land sales aerials and brief details, Cost Approach exhibit, Sales Comparison summary grid, improved sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach exhibit, Income Approach exhibit, comparable sales photographs, PwC Cap Rate Analysis (4th Qtr. 2019), Avison Young 4th Qtr. 2019 Survey, & impact fee calculations. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated the building cost new at $657,952, site improvements at $65,795, indirect costs at $14,475, entrepreneurial profit at $178,822, less depreciation of $312,527 for a total Replacement Cost New (RCN - depreciation) of $604,517. The PAO provides 18 land sales (with good back-up documentation). Three (3) of the sales are noted as ‘notable bank sales’ at $34.09 (closed in late 2017), $25.5 (closed in 20161, and $29.91/SF (closed in 2012), respectively. The PAO estimates land value at a very reasonable $30.00/SF ($1,050,000), plus $58,000 of impact fees for a total of $1,108,000 (which equates to 83.4% of the contested just value of $1,328,506). The land value + impact fees is then added to the depreciated value of the improvements resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate by the PAO of $1,713,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 13 improved sales from the Naples market area. The first 4 are leased fee branch bank sales, while the last 9 are fee simple branch bank sales (given greater weight) located in Collier & Lee Counties. The PAO concludes $450/SF X 3,436 SF = $1,546,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Given the subject’s building size is small (but in need of renovation), the PAO’s conclusion of $450/SF appears a little aggressive from the data given 7 of the most recent of the 9 fee simple sales all sold for less than $400/SF of building. Sale 12 (22/2015) sold for $422/SF, while Sale 13 sold for 2020-00249 Page 2 of 4 $491/SF in 7/2012. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $40/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 5.0%, expenses [excluding real estate taxes] at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.20% to NOI of $104,454 for a value indication of $1,451,000, or $422.29/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches to a value of $1,550,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted 24 pages of evidence via 1 Axia download. Evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provided a cover sheet, subject’s tax roll information from the PAO’s web site, subject’s CoStar summary sheet (indicating it is a 3-star property out of 5 possible stars), a Sales Comparison Approach based upon two (2) sales, CoStar sale back-up (with photos), DR-493, & miscellaneous tax law/DOR information. Of the 2 PET improved sales, Sale #1 was also used by the PAO as PAO’s Sale #5 in Naples that closed for $351/SF in December 2019. PET’s other sale is 4901 Tamiami Trail East that is a very low sale at $125/SF originally built in 1974, while the subject was built in 2000. RULING: The PET’s presentation is extremely weak, given it only consists of 2 improved sales (and one of those is very low & much older than the subject). However, there is merit to the PET’s Sale #1 that closed for $351/SF, as the PAO also uses that same sale. It happens to be the most recent open market sale of all the sales presented, so it does warrant some consideration. The PAO provided 3 approaches to value and it does appear the PAO’s land value + impact fees are very well supported at $1,108,000. However, I question the viability and strength of the ‘branch bank market’ in an era when there have been so many bank consolidations that could imply weakness in this product type. There has been a trend toward smaller branch sizes and more on-line banking anyway. Thus, there could be some degree of functional obsolescence associated with the subject (and features such as a walk-in vault) that are not addressed or accounted for in the PAO’s Cost Approach. Evidence for this possibility exists when examining the PAO’s roster of fee simple Collier County Bank sales & omitting the very old 2012 sale that appears to be much higher than all the other sales at $491/SF. The remaining 4 Collier fee simple improved sales sold for $/SF indicators of $351 (closed 12/2019 & PET also uses), $354, $384, & $422 for an average of $377.75/SF. Applying $377.75 to the subject’s 3,436 SF = $1,298,000 X 85% COS = $1,103,300. There did happen to be one Lee County sale at $376/SF, but the others were $283 & $223/SF; thus, it is generally recognized that Lee County sales are frequently inferior to Collier sales. It is noted that after a 15% COS deduction to the PAO’s Income Approach, original Sales Comparison Approach (i. e. before my comments), and the PAO’s Reconciliation, none of those resulting figures would have justified the contested just value. Only the PAO’s Cost Approach justified it once the COS was applied, resulting in a figure of $1,456,050; however, the PAO did not account for any functional obsolescence. [Note: Perhaps some may regard the subject’s form of obsolescence as ‘external’, depending upon how you want to classify it.] Thus, even the PAO’s reconciled value, less COS was not sufficient 2020-00249 Page 3 of 4 to justify the contested just value of $1,328,506 coming into this hearing. I give greatest weight to the apparent turn in the market for this class of asset, given buyers & sellers who actively trade in this building type have demonstrated agreed upon prices significantly less than the $450/SF for similar size buildings over the past years. Applying the 4 most recent fee simple Collier County bank sales average price of $377.75 to the subject’s 3,436 SF = $1,298,000 X 85% COS = $1,103,300. It is recognized that this is not much different than the underlying land value + impact fees, which implies a change in H&BU could be relatively near, or the viability as a bank branch may not last too much longer. The weight & preponderance of evidence suggests relief is warranted to $1,103,300. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00249: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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. 2020-00249 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00251 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00251 00282086004 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 3806 ENTERPRISEAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 2,853,811.00 2,853,811.00 2,853,811.00 2,456,814.00 2,456,814.00 2,456,814.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,456,814.00 2,456,814.00 2,456,814.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00251: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented [in person] by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (FM Naples Storage 18 FL, LLC.) was represented on the telephone by Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak with Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing consists of 7 total petitions being heard together as one operating mixed-use/self-storage property. The subjects were built between 1974-1991; thus, they range in age from 29 to 46 years. There are 25 different buildings & they are not all contiguous to each other. Generally, the buildings are in three areas that are not contiguous, yet close to each other. Some of the buildings are zoned C-5 (heavy commercial), while others are zoned “I” (industrial). Most of the subject consists of storage bays; however, some of the subject has offices and service/retail space. The addresses of the subject buildings are: TP-251- 3806 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-254- 571 Airport Road, Naples, FL 34104 TP’s-255, 256, 258- 3555 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-257- 3687 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-259- 3727 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 The total adjusted building area is 198,280 SF situated upon sites that equal 568,808 SF (i.e. 12.87 acres). Some of the building are air conditioned, yet many are not. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2015 for $16,430,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 85.8% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: Given this was the first VAB Petition of the year I have heard, the VAB customarily makes a presentation related to the reasonableness of their assessments, in accordance with DOR guidelines. In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The following evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible to this specific hearing, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $14,090,280, or $71.06/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO provided a cover page, table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts & conclusions, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, regional/area analysis, building sketches, location map, zoning maps, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, H&BU comments, Cost Approach summary with Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost data), improved sales grid, improved sales location map, improved sales photos/details, Income Approach, climate-controlled rental charts, non-climate-controlled rents, outside storage rents, 2020-00251 Page 2 of 6 market rent conclusions for the subject, operating expense comparable chart, market- derived self-storage cap rates, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/ back-up data for improved sales, reconciliation, PwC Self-Storage Market rate survey, Realty Rates Survey, Cushman & Wakefield investor survey, Self-Storage Newsletter article and support for impact fees. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $21.23/SF applied to the ‘high & dry’ area of the site of 12.87 acres for a land value of $11,905,000. The PAO then adds $242,344 of impact fees, indirect costs of $68,141, and site work of $500,539. The PAO’s structuring of the Cost Approach & sequence of math is not totally correct. The impact fees should be added to the land value, given the impact fees ‘run with the land’ & are not subject to depreciation. The site work, indirect costs and building costs should be added together with the entrepreneurial profit for a subtotal of RCN. That subtotal is then subject to depreciation, with that result added to the (value of the land) + (impact fees). The result is the value indication of the Cost Approach. The PAO states entrepreneurial profit as 10% X (depreciated costs + land value). [Note: Some appraisers base profit as a factor applied to the building costs without the land. Regardless of the method, the issue is that the entrepreneurial profit should be ‘reasonable’ for the magnitude of risks involved]. Using the PAO’s method of 10% profit of $2,101,574 results. The corrected RCN would be $10,969,968. The PAO used a higher construction cost rate/SF to the A/C buildings. Depreciation of 72.9% is indicated by the Marshall data, or -$7,997,107, resulting in the depreciated value of the improvements figure of $2,972,861. This figure is then added to the (land + impact fees) figure of $12,147,344, for a final (corrected) Cost Approach indication of $15,120,205 (instead of the PAO’s figure of $15,936,000) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO should have also added additional ‘costs to achieved stabilized occupancy’, given the subject is a well- established complex already at high occupancy. Thus, the corrected version of the PAO’s Cost Approach should easily approximate $16M, if considering the costs to get to the existing stage. I do note that the subject’s combined site area is 12.87 acres (usable), divided into 3 non-contiguous areas. Because the total site is broken up the way it is, the PAO’s use of land sales ranging in size from 0.44 to 3.6 acres is still reasonable at $925,000/acre (i.e. $21.24/SF). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22-$157.64/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. Sales 4 ($116.28/SF, #5 (157.64/SF, & #8 ($144.20/SF) are in Collier County. From an average (of all 8 sales), the PAO [very fairly] concludes $90/SF X 198,280 SF = $17,845,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. While it is sometimes difficult to compare self-storage properties (due to dissimilar mixes of A/C vs. non-A/C mixes of units, it does appear from the photographs that the sales do appear sufficiently similar to the subject. This approach is given strong weight as being supportive of the PAO’s assessment, given the quantity and quality of data. Plus, it is noted that 5 of the sales are from Lee County, which is normally considered inferior to the subject’s location in the heart of Collier County. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO provides A/C, non-A/C, & open parking rent comparables. The subject does have 50 open parking stalls, according to the testimony 2020-00251 Page 3 of 6 provided. The PAO also estimated rent for the subject’s limited office/service space. The PAO indicated he was not supplied with the owner’s historical operating information for this hearing. The PAO projects [blended] rent at $201,097/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/ collection loss at 13.0%, expenses at 35%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $1,450,350 for a value indication of $19,338,000, or $97.53/SF. The PAO gives weight to a 6.3% market cap rate & loads it with a 1.2% millage rate, resulting in a loaded OAR of 7.5%. PAO’s RECONCILIATION: The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches at $17,500,000 in support of the contested just value of $14,090,280. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon good Sales Comparison Approach information showing many older properties of similar vintage. It is noted the PAO’s reasonably well supported land value + impact fees = $12,147,344, which equates to 86.2% of the contested just value, yet almost 200,000 SF of existing building area remains in productive use. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (21 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. It is noted the PET only wrote 6 petition numbers on the cover sheet, yet she noted in testimony that PET #254 is also included in her analysis. This means her evidence does include all 7 petitions, which is consistent with the PAO’s evidence package. The PET’s evidence consists of a cover page, ‘review of value and appeal position’, roster of subject addresses, folios, building sizes, land sizes, 2020 AV’s, and year built for each petition. The PET also includes a 2019 Income Statement, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey (4th Qtr. 2019), Colliers International investor survey (1st Qtr. 2020), Income Approach-Actual, Income Approach-‘Blended Proforma’ [based upon 2019 year end data], Comparable Sales grid (2 sales), Collier County’s 2020 DR-493, & various documents related to the VAB process, case law, Bulletin PTO 11-01, etc. The PET includes multiple versions of the Income Approach using ‘actual’ (2019) income and 2 versions of ‘blended proforma’ 2019 income. The PET bases these approaches on a total of 179,554 SF of rentable area. This differs form the PAO’s use of 188,097 SF of NRA, plus the PAO also gives credit for an additional 13,000 SF of open storage space. The PET just uses lump sum figures for ‘net rental income’ and NRA without breaking down the different rental types of office and A/C vs. non-A/C space or open storage space. This makes it much more difficult to determine what rates apply to each category and how much of each category even exists. The PET’s original size breakdown on page 3 of her evidence shows a total building size of 198,280, but that is the ‘gross’ (or possibly ‘adjusted’) building size, not the ‘rentable’ breakdown. Again, there should be some separate consideration for open storage space that apparently exists. The PET fails to provide a rent roll, which would have been very helpful in establishing current ‘market’ rents, as well as building areas for each category of space. In the second ‘blended proforma’ (using year end 2019 figures) for the subject, the PET shows total revenue at $10.13/SF collected (i.e. EGI), 40.94% expenses (i.e. $4.15/SF), [which includes 4% or $72,724 in reserves], and a loaded cap rate of 8.39% [7.25 + 1.2 2020-00251 Page 4 of 6 millage rate]. The PET concludes a value of $12,891,070 (before any COS deduction), then makes a $236,189 capital expenditure deduction for a figure of 12,555,811. Then a 10% COS deduction is made resulting in a ‘just value’ of $11,300,230. The PET uses a relatively high ‘market’ cap rate of 7.25%. The PET justifies it by the subject’s physical breakdown of space into 3 non-contiguous areas [she calls functional obsolescence] and older age of the property. The PET states on the record that the reported historical income does include income from all sources (such as open storage, etc.). There is no detailed breakdown of revenue into the different rental categories; thus, the analysis is far less than would be desired for meaningful analysis. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 2 improved sales. The first sale is from Naples on White Lake Boulevard & it was built in 2017 & sold for $67/SF, which is a 2-story Cube Smart [most likely 100% AC and could have been sold vacant]. Sale #2 is a much smaller property of only 15,316 SF on Marco Island (built in ’84) that sold for $19/SF of building area. It does not seem comparable or worthy of analysis at this hearing. The PET fails to provide any pictures of these sales, or a location map. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is extremely weak. The PET should have expanded the geographic search area and/or gone further back in time to capture more sales to help establish a more supportable estimate of value. The PET requests a just value of $12.9M, or a reduction of $1,190,280. RULING: The PET’s sales presentation is extremely weak, mainly due to building size errors reported by the PET. In rebuttal testimony, the PAO notes PET’s sale #1 has a building area of 129,930 SF (not 188,615 SF), resulting in $134.69/SF (gross). The ‘rentable’ SF is the best unit of comparison with the subject, and the rentable likely would be near 75% of the 129,930 SF; thus, the sales price/rentable SF is closer to $180 for Sale #1. The PAO notes the PET also uses the wrong building size for her Sale #2. It should have been 24,858 SF of gross building area, resulting in a figure of $74.98/SF (gross) for this 4-story 100% AC building. Again, the more appropriate indicator ‘per SF of rentable’ area would be higher and actually more supportive of the subject’s assessment at $71.06/SF rentable, and probably closer to $100 per ‘rentable’ SF. The PET’s Income Approach could have been enhanced with a better breakdown of space and the associated rental categories for each, rather than lumping all revenue together. While I can understand not the PET not preparing a full Cost Approach, land value appears to be highly significant and helps to establish H&BU. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s supported land value + impact fees equal 86.2% of the total just value, yet the subject also has almost 200,000 SF of building area that still is able to contribute additional value. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees ‘run with the land’. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO’s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined). In addition, the 8 improved sales presented by the PAO appear far more comparable and supportive of the assessment, particularly when considering the Lee County sales are characteristically inferior to some extent in 2020-00251 Page 5 of 6 location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00251: 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. 2020-00251 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00254 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00254 00270640009 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 571 AIRPORT RDN NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 2,450,823.00 2,450,823.00 2,450,823.00 2,450,823.00 2,450,823.00 2,450,823.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,450,823.00 2,450,823.00 2,450,823.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00254: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented [in person] by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (FM Naples Storage 18 FL, LLC.) was represented on the telephone by Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak with Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing consists of 7 total petitions being heard together as one operating mixed-use/self-storage property. The subjects were built between 1974-1991; thus, they range in age from 29 to 46 years. There are 25 different buildings & they are not all contiguous to each other. Generally, the buildings are in three areas that are not contiguous, yet close to each other. Some of the buildings are zoned C-5 (heavy commercial), while others are zoned “I” (industrial). Most of the subject consists of storage bays; however, some of the subject has offices and service/retail space. The addresses of the subject buildings are: TP-251- 3806 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-254- 571 Airport Road, Naples, FL 34104 TP’s-255, 256, 258- 3555 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-257- 3687 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-259- 3727 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 The total adjusted building area is 198,280 SF situated upon sites that equal 568,808 SF (i.e. 12.87 acres). Some of the building are air conditioned, yet many are not. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2015 for $16,430,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 85.8% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: Given this was the first VAB Petition of the year I have heard, the VAB customarily makes a presentation related to the reasonableness of their assessments, in accordance with DOR guidelines. In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The following evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible to this specific hearing, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $14,090,280, or $71.06/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO provided a cover page, table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts & conclusions, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, regional/area analysis, building sketches, location map, zoning maps, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, H&BU comments, Cost Approach summary with Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost data), improved sales grid, improved sales location map, improved sales photos/details, Income Approach, climate-controlled rental charts, non-climate-controlled rents, outside storage rents, 2020-00254 Page 2 of 6 market rent conclusions for the subject, operating expense comparable chart, market- derived self-storage cap rates, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/ back-up data for improved sales, reconciliation, PwC Self-Storage Market rate survey, Realty Rates Survey, Cushman & Wakefield investor survey, Self-Storage Newsletter article and support for impact fees. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $21.23/SF applied to the ‘high & dry’ area of the site of 12.87 acres for a land value of $11,905,000. The PAO then adds $242,344 of impact fees, indirect costs of $68,141, and site work of $500,539. The PAO’s structuring of the Cost Approach & sequence of math is not totally correct. The impact fees should be added to the land value, given the impact fees ‘run with the land’ & are not subject to depreciation. The site work, indirect costs and building costs should be added together with the entrepreneurial profit for a subtotal of RCN. That subtotal is then subject to depreciation, with that result added to the (value of the land) + (impact fees). The result is the value indication of the Cost Approach. The PAO states entrepreneurial profit as 10% X (depreciated costs + land value). [Note: Some appraisers base profit as a factor applied to the building costs without the land. Regardless of the method, the issue is that the entrepreneurial profit should be ‘reasonable’ for the magnitude of risks involved]. Using the PAO’s method of 10% profit of $2,101,574 results. The corrected RCN would be $10,969,968. The PAO used a higher construction cost rate/SF to the A/C buildings. Depreciation of 72.9% is indicated by the Marshall data, or -$7,997,107, resulting in the depreciated value of the improvements figure of $2,972,861. This figure is then added to the (land + impact fees) figure of $12,147,344, for a final (corrected) Cost Approach indication of $15,120,205 (instead of the PAO’s figure of $15,936,000) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO should have also added additional ‘costs to achieved stabilized occupancy’, given the subject is a well- established complex already at high occupancy. Thus, the corrected version of the PAO’s Cost Approach should easily approximate $16M, if considering the costs to get to the existing stage. I do note that the subject’s combined site area is 12.87 acres (usable), divided into 3 non-contiguous areas. Because the total site is broken up the way it is, the PAO’s use of land sales ranging in size from 0.44 to 3.6 acres is still reasonable at $925,000/acre (i.e. $21.24/SF). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22-$157.64/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. Sales 4 ($116.28/SF, #5 (157.64/SF, & #8 ($144.20/SF) are in Collier County. From an average (of all 8 sales), the PAO [very fairly] concludes $90/SF X 198,280 SF = $17,845,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. While it is sometimes difficult to compare self-storage properties (due to dissimilar mixes of A/C vs. non-A/C mixes of units, it does appear from the photographs that the sales do appear sufficiently similar to the subject. This approach is given strong weight as being supportive of the PAO’s assessment, given the quantity and quality of data. Plus, it is noted that 5 of the sales are from Lee County, which is normally considered inferior to the subject’s location in the heart of Collier County. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO provides A/C, non-A/C, & open parking rent comparables. The subject does have 50 open parking stalls, according to the testimony 2020-00254 Page 3 of 6 provided. The PAO also estimated rent for the subject’s limited office/service space. The PAO indicated he was not supplied with the owner’s historical operating information for this hearing. The PAO projects [blended] rent at $201,097/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/ collection loss at 13.0%, expenses at 35%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $1,450,350 for a value indication of $19,338,000, or $97.53/SF. The PAO gives weight to a 6.3% market cap rate & loads it with a 1.2% millage rate, resulting in a loaded OAR of 7.5%. PAO’s RECONCILIATION: The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches at $17,500,000 in support of the contested just value of $14,090,280. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon good Sales Comparison Approach information showing many older properties of similar vintage. It is noted the PAO’s reasonably well supported land value + impact fees = $12,147,344, which equates to 86.2% of the contested just value, yet almost 200,000 SF of existing building area remains in productive use. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (21 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. It is noted the PET only wrote 6 petition numbers on the cover sheet, yet she noted in testimony that PET #254 is also included in her analysis. This means her evidence does include all 7 petitions, which is consistent with the PAO’s evidence package. The PET’s evidence consists of a cover page, ‘review of value and appeal position’, roster of subject addresses, folios, building sizes, land sizes, 2020 AV’s, and year built for each petition. The PET also includes a 2019 Income Statement, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey (4th Qtr. 2019), Colliers International investor survey (1st Qtr. 2020), Income Approach-Actual, Income Approach-‘Blended Proforma’ [based upon 2019 year end data], Comparable Sales grid (2 sales), Collier County’s 2020 DR-493, & various documents related to the VAB process, case law, Bulletin PTO 11-01, etc. The PET includes multiple versions of the Income Approach using ‘actual’ (2019) income and 2 versions of ‘blended proforma’ 2019 income. The PET bases these approaches on a total of 179,554 SF of rentable area. This differs form the PAO’s use of 188,097 SF of NRA, plus the PAO also gives credit for an additional 13,000 SF of open storage space. The PET just uses lump sum figures for ‘net rental income’ and NRA without breaking down the different rental types of office and A/C vs. non-A/C space or open storage space. This makes it much more difficult to determine what rates apply to each category and how much of each category even exists. The PET’s original size breakdown on page 3 of her evidence shows a total building size of 198,280, but that is the ‘gross’ (or possibly ‘adjusted’) building size, not the ‘rentable’ breakdown. Again, there should be some separate consideration for open storage space that apparently exists. The PET fails to provide a rent roll, which would have been very helpful in establishing current ‘market’ rents, as well as building areas for each category of space. In the second ‘blended proforma’ (using year end 2019 figures) for the subject, the PET shows total revenue at $10.13/SF collected (i.e. EGI), 40.94% expenses (i.e. $4.15/SF), [which includes 4% or $72,724 in reserves], and a loaded cap rate of 8.39% [7.25 + 1.2 2020-00254 Page 4 of 6 millage rate]. The PET concludes a value of $12,891,070 (before any COS deduction), then makes a $236,189 capital expenditure deduction for a figure of 12,555,811. Then a 10% COS deduction is made resulting in a ‘just value’ of $11,300,230. The PET uses a relatively high ‘market’ cap rate of 7.25%. The PET justifies it by the subject’s physical breakdown of space into 3 non-contiguous areas [she calls functional obsolescence] and older age of the property. The PET states on the record that the reported historical income does include income from all sources (such as open storage, etc.). There is no detailed breakdown of revenue into the different rental categories; thus, the analysis is far less than would be desired for meaningful analysis. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 2 improved sales. The first sale is from Naples on White Lake Boulevard & it was built in 2017 & sold for $67/SF, which is a 2-story Cube Smart [most likely 100% AC and could have been sold vacant]. Sale #2 is a much smaller property of only 15,316 SF on Marco Island (built in ’84) that sold for $19/SF of building area. It does not seem comparable or worthy of analysis at this hearing. The PET fails to provide any pictures of these sales, or a location map. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is extremely weak. The PET should have expanded the geographic search area and/or gone further back in time to capture more sales to help establish a more supportable estimate of value. The PET requests a just value of $12.9M, or a reduction of $1,190,280. RULING: The PET’s sales presentation is extremely weak, mainly due to building size errors reported by the PET. In rebuttal testimony, the PAO notes PET’s sale #1 has a building area of 129,930 SF (not 188,615 SF), resulting in $134.69/SF (gross). The ‘rentable’ SF is the best unit of comparison with the subject, and the rentable likely would be near 75% of the 129,930 SF; thus, the sales price/rentable SF is closer to $180 for Sale #1. The PAO notes the PET also uses the wrong building size for her Sale #2. It should have been 24,858 SF of gross building area, resulting in a figure of $74.98/SF (gross) for this 4-story 100% AC building. Again, the more appropriate indicator ‘per SF of rentable’ area would be higher and actually more supportive of the subject’s assessment at $71.06/SF rentable, and probably closer to $100 per ‘rentable’ SF. The PET’s Income Approach could have been enhanced with a better breakdown of space and the associated rental categories for each, rather than lumping all revenue together. While I can understand not the PET not preparing a full Cost Approach, land value appears to be highly significant and helps to establish H&BU. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s supported land value + impact fees equal 86.2% of the total just value, yet the subject also has almost 200,000 SF of building area that still is able to contribute additional value. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees ‘run with the land’. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO’s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined). In addition, the 8 improved sales presented by the PAO appear far more comparable and supportive of the assessment, particularly when considering the Lee County sales are characteristically inferior to some extent in 2020-00254 Page 5 of 6 location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00254: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment 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. 2020-00254 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00255 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00255 00271120007 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 3555 EXCHANGEAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 572,023.00 572,023.00 572,023.00 572,023.00 572,023.00 572,023.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 572,023.00 572,023.00 572,023.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00255: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented [in person] by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (FM Naples Storage 18 FL, LLC.) was represented on the telephone by Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak with Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing consists of 7 total petitions being heard together as one operating mixed-use/self-storage property. The subjects were built between 1974-1991; thus, they range in age from 29 to 46 years. There are 25 different buildings & they are not all contiguous to each other. Generally, the buildings are in three areas that are not contiguous, yet close to each other. Some of the buildings are zoned C-5 (heavy commercial), while others are zoned “I” (industrial). Most of the subject consists of storage bays; however, some of the subject has offices and service/retail space. The addresses of the subject buildings are: TP-251- 3806 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-254- 571 Airport Road, Naples, FL 34104 TP’s-255, 256, 258- 3555 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-257- 3687 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-259- 3727 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 The total adjusted building area is 198,280 SF situated upon sites that equal 568,808 SF (i.e. 12.87 acres). Some of the building are air conditioned, yet many are not. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2015 for $16,430,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 85.8% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: Given this was the first VAB Petition of the year I have heard, the VAB customarily makes a presentation related to the reasonableness of their assessments, in accordance with DOR guidelines. In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The following evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible to this specific hearing, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $14,090,280, or $71.06/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO provided a cover page, table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts & conclusions, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, regional/area analysis, building sketches, location map, zoning maps, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, H&BU comments, Cost Approach summary with Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost data), improved sales grid, improved sales location map, improved sales photos/details, Income Approach, climate-controlled rental charts, non-climate-controlled rents, outside storage rents, 2020-00255 Page 2 of 6 market rent conclusions for the subject, operating expense comparable chart, market- derived self-storage cap rates, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/ back-up data for improved sales, reconciliation, PwC Self-Storage Market rate survey, Realty Rates Survey, Cushman & Wakefield investor survey, Self-Storage Newsletter article and support for impact fees. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $21.23/SF applied to the ‘high & dry’ area of the site of 12.87 acres for a land value of $11,905,000. The PAO then adds $242,344 of impact fees, indirect costs of $68,141, and site work of $500,539. The PAO’s structuring of the Cost Approach & sequence of math is not totally correct. The impact fees should be added to the land value, given the impact fees ‘run with the land’ & are not subject to depreciation. The site work, indirect costs and building costs should be added together with the entrepreneurial profit for a subtotal of RCN. That subtotal is then subject to depreciation, with that result added to the (value of the land) + (impact fees). The result is the value indication of the Cost Approach. The PAO states entrepreneurial profit as 10% X (depreciated costs + land value). [Note: Some appraisers base profit as a factor applied to the building costs without the land. Regardless of the method, the issue is that the entrepreneurial profit should be ‘reasonable’ for the magnitude of risks involved]. Using the PAO’s method of 10% profit of $2,101,574 results. The corrected RCN would be $10,969,968. The PAO used a higher construction cost rate/SF to the A/C buildings. Depreciation of 72.9% is indicated by the Marshall data, or -$7,997,107, resulting in the depreciated value of the improvements figure of $2,972,861. This figure is then added to the (land + impact fees) figure of $12,147,344, for a final (corrected) Cost Approach indication of $15,120,205 (instead of the PAO’s figure of $15,936,000) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO should have also added additional ‘costs to achieved stabilized occupancy’, given the subject is a well- established complex already at high occupancy. Thus, the corrected version of the PAO’s Cost Approach should easily approximate $16M, if considering the costs to get to the existing stage. I do note that the subject’s combined site area is 12.87 acres (usable), divided into 3 non-contiguous areas. Because the total site is broken up the way it is, the PAO’s use of land sales ranging in size from 0.44 to 3.6 acres is still reasonable at $925,000/acre (i.e. $21.24/SF). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22-$157.64/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. Sales 4 ($116.28/SF, #5 (157.64/SF, & #8 ($144.20/SF) are in Collier County. From an average (of all 8 sales), the PAO [very fairly] concludes $90/SF X 198,280 SF = $17,845,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. While it is sometimes difficult to compare self-storage properties (due to dissimilar mixes of A/C vs. non-A/C mixes of units, it does appear from the photographs that the sales do appear sufficiently similar to the subject. This approach is given strong weight as being supportive of the PAO’s assessment, given the quantity and quality of data. Plus, it is noted that 5 of the sales are from Lee County, which is normally considered inferior to the subject’s location in the heart of Collier County. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO provides A/C, non-A/C, & open parking rent comparables. The subject does have 50 open parking stalls, according to the testimony 2020-00255 Page 3 of 6 provided. The PAO also estimated rent for the subject’s limited office/service space. The PAO indicated he was not supplied with the owner’s historical operating information for this hearing. The PAO projects [blended] rent at $201,097/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/ collection loss at 13.0%, expenses at 35%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $1,450,350 for a value indication of $19,338,000, or $97.53/SF. The PAO gives weight to a 6.3% market cap rate & loads it with a 1.2% millage rate, resulting in a loaded OAR of 7.5%. PAO’s RECONCILIATION: The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches at $17,500,000 in support of the contested just value of $14,090,280. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon good Sales Comparison Approach information showing many older properties of similar vintage. It is noted the PAO’s reasonably well supported land value + impact fees = $12,147,344, which equates to 86.2% of the contested just value, yet almost 200,000 SF of existing building area remains in productive use. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (21 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. It is noted the PET only wrote 6 petition numbers on the cover sheet, yet she noted in testimony that PET #254 is also included in her analysis. This means her evidence does include all 7 petitions, which is consistent with the PAO’s evidence package. The PET’s evidence consists of a cover page, ‘review of value and appeal position’, roster of subject addresses, folios, building sizes, land sizes, 2020 AV’s, and year built for each petition. The PET also includes a 2019 Income Statement, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey (4th Qtr. 2019), Colliers International investor survey (1st Qtr. 2020), Income Approach-Actual, Income Approach-‘Blended Proforma’ [based upon 2019 year end data], Comparable Sales grid (2 sales), Collier County’s 2020 DR-493, & various documents related to the VAB process, case law, Bulletin PTO 11-01, etc. The PET includes multiple versions of the Income Approach using ‘actual’ (2019) income and 2 versions of ‘blended proforma’ 2019 income. The PET bases these approaches on a total of 179,554 SF of rentable area. This differs form the PAO’s use of 188,097 SF of NRA, plus the PAO also gives credit for an additional 13,000 SF of open storage space. The PET just uses lump sum figures for ‘net rental income’ and NRA without breaking down the different rental types of office and A/C vs. non-A/C space or open storage space. This makes it much more difficult to determine what rates apply to each category and how much of each category even exists. The PET’s original size breakdown on page 3 of her evidence shows a total building size of 198,280, but that is the ‘gross’ (or possibly ‘adjusted’) building size, not the ‘rentable’ breakdown. Again, there should be some separate consideration for open storage space that apparently exists. The PET fails to provide a rent roll, which would have been very helpful in establishing current ‘market’ rents, as well as building areas for each category of space. In the second ‘blended proforma’ (using year end 2019 figures) for the subject, the PET shows total revenue at $10.13/SF collected (i.e. EGI), 40.94% expenses (i.e. $4.15/SF), [which includes 4% or $72,724 in reserves], and a loaded cap rate of 8.39% [7.25 + 1.2 2020-00255 Page 4 of 6 millage rate]. The PET concludes a value of $12,891,070 (before any COS deduction), then makes a $236,189 capital expenditure deduction for a figure of 12,555,811. Then a 10% COS deduction is made resulting in a ‘just value’ of $11,300,230. The PET uses a relatively high ‘market’ cap rate of 7.25%. The PET justifies it by the subject’s physical breakdown of space into 3 non-contiguous areas [she calls functional obsolescence] and older age of the property. The PET states on the record that the reported historical income does include income from all sources (such as open storage, etc.). There is no detailed breakdown of revenue into the different rental categories; thus, the analysis is far less than would be desired for meaningful analysis. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 2 improved sales. The first sale is from Naples on White Lake Boulevard & it was built in 2017 & sold for $67/SF, which is a 2-story Cube Smart [most likely 100% AC and could have been sold vacant]. Sale #2 is a much smaller property of only 15,316 SF on Marco Island (built in ’84) that sold for $19/SF of building area. It does not seem comparable or worthy of analysis at this hearing. The PET fails to provide any pictures of these sales, or a location map. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is extremely weak. The PET should have expanded the geographic search area and/or gone further back in time to capture more sales to help establish a more supportable estimate of value. The PET requests a just value of $12.9M, or a reduction of $1,190,280. RULING: The PET’s sales presentation is extremely weak, mainly due to building size errors reported by the PET. In rebuttal testimony, the PAO notes PET’s sale #1 has a building area of 129,930 SF (not 188,615 SF), resulting in $134.69/SF (gross). The ‘rentable’ SF is the best unit of comparison with the subject, and the rentable likely would be near 75% of the 129,930 SF; thus, the sales price/rentable SF is closer to $180 for Sale #1. The PAO notes the PET also uses the wrong building size for her Sale #2. It should have been 24,858 SF of gross building area, resulting in a figure of $74.98/SF (gross) for this 4-story 100% AC building. Again, the more appropriate indicator ‘per SF of rentable’ area would be higher and actually more supportive of the subject’s assessment at $71.06/SF rentable, and probably closer to $100 per ‘rentable’ SF. The PET’s Income Approach could have been enhanced with a better breakdown of space and the associated rental categories for each, rather than lumping all revenue together. While I can understand not the PET not preparing a full Cost Approach, land value appears to be highly significant and helps to establish H&BU. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s supported land value + impact fees equal 86.2% of the total just value, yet the subject also has almost 200,000 SF of building area that still is able to contribute additional value. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees ‘run with the land’. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO’s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined). In addition, the 8 improved sales presented by the PAO appear far more comparable and supportive of the assessment, particularly when considering the Lee County sales are characteristically inferior to some extent in 2020-00255 Page 5 of 6 location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00255: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment 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. 2020-00255 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00256 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00256 00271160009 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 3555 EXCHANGEAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 2,787,515.00 2,787,515.00 2,787,515.00 2,265,615.00 2,265,615.00 2,265,615.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,265,615.00 2,265,615.00 2,265,615.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00256: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented [in person] by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (FM Naples Storage 18 FL, LLC.) was represented on the telephone by Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak with Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing consists of 7 total petitions being heard together as one operating mixed-use/self-storage property. The subjects were built between 1974-1991; thus, they range in age from 29 to 46 years. There are 25 different buildings & they are not all contiguous to each other. Generally, the buildings are in three areas that are not contiguous, yet close to each other. Some of the buildings are zoned C-5 (heavy commercial), while others are zoned “I” (industrial). Most of the subject consists of storage bays; however, some of the subject has offices and service/retail space. The addresses of the subject buildings are: TP-251- 3806 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-254- 571 Airport Road, Naples, FL 34104 TP’s-255, 256, 258- 3555 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-257- 3687 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-259- 3727 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 The total adjusted building area is 198,280 SF situated upon sites that equal 568,808 SF (i.e. 12.87 acres). Some of the building are air conditioned, yet many are not. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2015 for $16,430,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 85.8% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: Given this was the first VAB Petition of the year I have heard, the VAB customarily makes a presentation related to the reasonableness of their assessments, in accordance with DOR guidelines. In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The following evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible to this specific hearing, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $14,090,280, or $71.06/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO provided a cover page, table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts & conclusions, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, regional/area analysis, building sketches, location map, zoning maps, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, H&BU comments, Cost Approach summary with Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost data), improved sales grid, improved sales location map, improved sales photos/details, Income Approach, climate-controlled rental charts, non-climate-controlled rents, outside storage rents, 2020-00256 Page 2 of 6 market rent conclusions for the subject, operating expense comparable chart, market- derived self-storage cap rates, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/ back-up data for improved sales, reconciliation, PwC Self-Storage Market rate survey, Realty Rates Survey, Cushman & Wakefield investor survey, Self-Storage Newsletter article and support for impact fees. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $21.23/SF applied to the ‘high & dry’ area of the site of 12.87 acres for a land value of $11,905,000. The PAO then adds $242,344 of impact fees, indirect costs of $68,141, and site work of $500,539. The PAO’s structuring of the Cost Approach & sequence of math is not totally correct. The impact fees should be added to the land value, given the impact fees ‘run with the land’ & are not subject to depreciation. The site work, indirect costs and building costs should be added together with the entrepreneurial profit for a subtotal of RCN. That subtotal is then subject to depreciation, with that result added to the (value of the land) + (impact fees). The result is the value indication of the Cost Approach. The PAO states entrepreneurial profit as 10% X (depreciated costs + land value). [Note: Some appraisers base profit as a factor applied to the building costs without the land. Regardless of the method, the issue is that the entrepreneurial profit should be ‘reasonable’ for the magnitude of risks involved]. Using the PAO’s method of 10% profit of $2,101,574 results. The corrected RCN would be $10,969,968. The PAO used a higher construction cost rate/SF to the A/C buildings. Depreciation of 72.9% is indicated by the Marshall data, or -$7,997,107, resulting in the depreciated value of the improvements figure of $2,972,861. This figure is then added to the (land + impact fees) figure of $12,147,344, for a final (corrected) Cost Approach indication of $15,120,205 (instead of the PAO’s figure of $15,936,000) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO should have also added additional ‘costs to achieved stabilized occupancy’, given the subject is a well- established complex already at high occupancy. Thus, the corrected version of the PAO’s Cost Approach should easily approximate $16M, if considering the costs to get to the existing stage. I do note that the subject’s combined site area is 12.87 acres (usable), divided into 3 non-contiguous areas. Because the total site is broken up the way it is, the PAO’s use of land sales ranging in size from 0.44 to 3.6 acres is still reasonable at $925,000/acre (i.e. $21.24/SF). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22-$157.64/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. Sales 4 ($116.28/SF, #5 (157.64/SF, & #8 ($144.20/SF) are in Collier County. From an average (of all 8 sales), the PAO [very fairly] concludes $90/SF X 198,280 SF = $17,845,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. While it is sometimes difficult to compare self-storage properties (due to dissimilar mixes of A/C vs. non-A/C mixes of units, it does appear from the photographs that the sales do appear sufficiently similar to the subject. This approach is given strong weight as being supportive of the PAO’s assessment, given the quantity and quality of data. Plus, it is noted that 5 of the sales are from Lee County, which is normally considered inferior to the subject’s location in the heart of Collier County. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO provides A/C, non-A/C, & open parking rent comparables. The subject does have 50 open parking stalls, according to the testimony 2020-00256 Page 3 of 6 provided. The PAO also estimated rent for the subject’s limited office/service space. The PAO indicated he was not supplied with the owner’s historical operating information for this hearing. The PAO projects [blended] rent at $201,097/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/ collection loss at 13.0%, expenses at 35%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $1,450,350 for a value indication of $19,338,000, or $97.53/SF. The PAO gives weight to a 6.3% market cap rate & loads it with a 1.2% millage rate, resulting in a loaded OAR of 7.5%. PAO’s RECONCILIATION: The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches at $17,500,000 in support of the contested just value of $14,090,280. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon good Sales Comparison Approach information showing many older properties of similar vintage. It is noted the PAO’s reasonably well supported land value + impact fees = $12,147,344, which equates to 86.2% of the contested just value, yet almost 200,000 SF of existing building area remains in productive use. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (21 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. It is noted the PET only wrote 6 petition numbers on the cover sheet, yet she noted in testimony that PET #254 is also included in her analysis. This means her evidence does include all 7 petitions, which is consistent with the PAO’s evidence package. The PET’s evidence consists of a cover page, ‘review of value and appeal position’, roster of subject addresses, folios, building sizes, land sizes, 2020 AV’s, and year built for each petition. The PET also includes a 2019 Income Statement, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey (4th Qtr. 2019), Colliers International investor survey (1st Qtr. 2020), Income Approach-Actual, Income Approach-‘Blended Proforma’ [based upon 2019 year end data], Comparable Sales grid (2 sales), Collier County’s 2020 DR-493, & various documents related to the VAB process, case law, Bulletin PTO 11-01, etc. The PET includes multiple versions of the Income Approach using ‘actual’ (2019) income and 2 versions of ‘blended proforma’ 2019 income. The PET bases these approaches on a total of 179,554 SF of rentable area. This differs form the PAO’s use of 188,097 SF of NRA, plus the PAO also gives credit for an additional 13,000 SF of open storage space. The PET just uses lump sum figures for ‘net rental income’ and NRA without breaking down the different rental types of office and A/C vs. non-A/C space or open storage space. This makes it much more difficult to determine what rates apply to each category and how much of each category even exists. The PET’s original size breakdown on page 3 of her evidence shows a total building size of 198,280, but that is the ‘gross’ (or possibly ‘adjusted’) building size, not the ‘rentable’ breakdown. Again, there should be some separate consideration for open storage space that apparently exists. The PET fails to provide a rent roll, which would have been very helpful in establishing current ‘market’ rents, as well as building areas for each category of space. In the second ‘blended proforma’ (using year end 2019 figures) for the subject, the PET shows total revenue at $10.13/SF collected (i.e. EGI), 40.94% expenses (i.e. $4.15/SF), [which includes 4% or $72,724 in reserves], and a loaded cap rate of 8.39% [7.25 + 1.2 2020-00256 Page 4 of 6 millage rate]. The PET concludes a value of $12,891,070 (before any COS deduction), then makes a $236,189 capital expenditure deduction for a figure of 12,555,811. Then a 10% COS deduction is made resulting in a ‘just value’ of $11,300,230. The PET uses a relatively high ‘market’ cap rate of 7.25%. The PET justifies it by the subject’s physical breakdown of space into 3 non-contiguous areas [she calls functional obsolescence] and older age of the property. The PET states on the record that the reported historical income does include income from all sources (such as open storage, etc.). There is no detailed breakdown of revenue into the different rental categories; thus, the analysis is far less than would be desired for meaningful analysis. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 2 improved sales. The first sale is from Naples on White Lake Boulevard & it was built in 2017 & sold for $67/SF, which is a 2-story Cube Smart [most likely 100% AC and could have been sold vacant]. Sale #2 is a much smaller property of only 15,316 SF on Marco Island (built in ’84) that sold for $19/SF of building area. It does not seem comparable or worthy of analysis at this hearing. The PET fails to provide any pictures of these sales, or a location map. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is extremely weak. The PET should have expanded the geographic search area and/or gone further back in time to capture more sales to help establish a more supportable estimate of value. The PET requests a just value of $12.9M, or a reduction of $1,190,280. RULING: The PET’s sales presentation is extremely weak, mainly due to building size errors reported by the PET. In rebuttal testimony, the PAO notes PET’s sale #1 has a building area of 129,930 SF (not 188,615 SF), resulting in $134.69/SF (gross). The ‘rentable’ SF is the best unit of comparison with the subject, and the rentable likely would be near 75% of the 129,930 SF; thus, the sales price/rentable SF is closer to $180 for Sale #1. The PAO notes the PET also uses the wrong building size for her Sale #2. It should have been 24,858 SF of gross building area, resulting in a figure of $74.98/SF (gross) for this 4-story 100% AC building. Again, the more appropriate indicator ‘per SF of rentable’ area would be higher and actually more supportive of the subject’s assessment at $71.06/SF rentable, and probably closer to $100 per ‘rentable’ SF. The PET’s Income Approach could have been enhanced with a better breakdown of space and the associated rental categories for each, rather than lumping all revenue together. While I can understand not the PET not preparing a full Cost Approach, land value appears to be highly significant and helps to establish H&BU. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s supported land value + impact fees equal 86.2% of the total just value, yet the subject also has almost 200,000 SF of building area that still is able to contribute additional value. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees ‘run with the land’. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO’s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined). In addition, the 8 improved sales presented by the PAO appear far more comparable and supportive of the assessment, particularly when considering the Lee County sales are characteristically inferior to some extent in 2020-00256 Page 5 of 6 location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00256: 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. 2020-00256 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00257 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00257 00272480005 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 3687 EXCHANGEAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 3,002,706.00 3,002,706.00 3,002,706.00 2,510,566.00 2,510,566.00 2,510,566.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,510,566.00 2,510,566.00 2,510,566.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00257: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented [in person] by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (FM Naples Storage 18 FL, LLC.) was represented on the telephone by Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak with Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing consists of 7 total petitions being heard together as one operating mixed-use/self-storage property. The subjects were built between 1974-1991; thus, they range in age from 29 to 46 years. There are 25 different buildings & they are not all contiguous to each other. Generally, the buildings are in three areas that are not contiguous, yet close to each other. Some of the buildings are zoned C-5 (heavy commercial), while others are zoned “I” (industrial). Most of the subject consists of storage bays; however, some of the subject has offices and service/retail space. The addresses of the subject buildings are: TP-251- 3806 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-254- 571 Airport Road, Naples, FL 34104 TP’s-255, 256, 258- 3555 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-257- 3687 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-259- 3727 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 The total adjusted building area is 198,280 SF situated upon sites that equal 568,808 SF (i.e. 12.87 acres). Some of the building are air conditioned, yet many are not. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2015 for $16,430,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 85.8% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: Given this was the first VAB Petition of the year I have heard, the VAB customarily makes a presentation related to the reasonableness of their assessments, in accordance with DOR guidelines. In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The following evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible to this specific hearing, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $14,090,280, or $71.06/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO provided a cover page, table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts & conclusions, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, regional/area analysis, building sketches, location map, zoning maps, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, H&BU comments, Cost Approach summary with Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost data), improved sales grid, improved sales location map, improved sales photos/details, Income Approach, climate-controlled rental charts, non-climate-controlled rents, outside storage rents, 2020-00257 Page 2 of 6 market rent conclusions for the subject, operating expense comparable chart, market- derived self-storage cap rates, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/ back-up data for improved sales, reconciliation, PwC Self-Storage Market rate survey, Realty Rates Survey, Cushman & Wakefield investor survey, Self-Storage Newsletter article and support for impact fees. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $21.23/SF applied to the ‘high & dry’ area of the site of 12.87 acres for a land value of $11,905,000. The PAO then adds $242,344 of impact fees, indirect costs of $68,141, and site work of $500,539. The PAO’s structuring of the Cost Approach & sequence of math is not totally correct. The impact fees should be added to the land value, given the impact fees ‘run with the land’ & are not subject to depreciation. The site work, indirect costs and building costs should be added together with the entrepreneurial profit for a subtotal of RCN. That subtotal is then subject to depreciation, with that result added to the (value of the land) + (impact fees). The result is the value indication of the Cost Approach. The PAO states entrepreneurial profit as 10% X (depreciated costs + land value). [Note: Some appraisers base profit as a factor applied to the building costs without the land. Regardless of the method, the issue is that the entrepreneurial profit should be ‘reasonable’ for the magnitude of risks involved]. Using the PAO’s method of 10% profit of $2,101,574 results. The corrected RCN would be $10,969,968. The PAO used a higher construction cost rate/SF to the A/C buildings. Depreciation of 72.9% is indicated by the Marshall data, or -$7,997,107, resulting in the depreciated value of the improvements figure of $2,972,861. This figure is then added to the (land + impact fees) figure of $12,147,344, for a final (corrected) Cost Approach indication of $15,120,205 (instead of the PAO’s figure of $15,936,000) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO should have also added additional ‘costs to achieved stabilized occupancy’, given the subject is a well- established complex already at high occupancy. Thus, the corrected version of the PAO’s Cost Approach should easily approximate $16M, if considering the costs to get to the existing stage. I do note that the subject’s combined site area is 12.87 acres (usable), divided into 3 non-contiguous areas. Because the total site is broken up the way it is, the PAO’s use of land sales ranging in size from 0.44 to 3.6 acres is still reasonable at $925,000/acre (i.e. $21.24/SF). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22-$157.64/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. Sales 4 ($116.28/SF, #5 (157.64/SF, & #8 ($144.20/SF) are in Collier County. From an average (of all 8 sales), the PAO [very fairly] concludes $90/SF X 198,280 SF = $17,845,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. While it is sometimes difficult to compare self-storage properties (due to dissimilar mixes of A/C vs. non-A/C mixes of units, it does appear from the photographs that the sales do appear sufficiently similar to the subject. This approach is given strong weight as being supportive of the PAO’s assessment, given the quantity and quality of data. Plus, it is noted that 5 of the sales are from Lee County, which is normally considered inferior to the subject’s location in the heart of Collier County. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO provides A/C, non-A/C, & open parking rent comparables. The subject does have 50 open parking stalls, according to the testimony 2020-00257 Page 3 of 6 provided. The PAO also estimated rent for the subject’s limited office/service space. The PAO indicated he was not supplied with the owner’s historical operating information for this hearing. The PAO projects [blended] rent at $201,097/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/ collection loss at 13.0%, expenses at 35%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $1,450,350 for a value indication of $19,338,000, or $97.53/SF. The PAO gives weight to a 6.3% market cap rate & loads it with a 1.2% millage rate, resulting in a loaded OAR of 7.5%. PAO’s RECONCILIATION: The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches at $17,500,000 in support of the contested just value of $14,090,280. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon good Sales Comparison Approach information showing many older properties of similar vintage. It is noted the PAO’s reasonably well supported land value + impact fees = $12,147,344, which equates to 86.2% of the contested just value, yet almost 200,000 SF of existing building area remains in productive use. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (21 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. It is noted the PET only wrote 6 petition numbers on the cover sheet, yet she noted in testimony that PET #254 is also included in her analysis. This means her evidence does include all 7 petitions, which is consistent with the PAO’s evidence package. The PET’s evidence consists of a cover page, ‘review of value and appeal position’, roster of subject addresses, folios, building sizes, land sizes, 2020 AV’s, and year built for each petition. The PET also includes a 2019 Income Statement, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey (4th Qtr. 2019), Colliers International investor survey (1st Qtr. 2020), Income Approach-Actual, Income Approach-‘Blended Proforma’ [based upon 2019 year end data], Comparable Sales grid (2 sales), Collier County’s 2020 DR-493, & various documents related to the VAB process, case law, Bulletin PTO 11-01, etc. The PET includes multiple versions of the Income Approach using ‘actual’ (2019) income and 2 versions of ‘blended proforma’ 2019 income. The PET bases these approaches on a total of 179,554 SF of rentable area. This differs form the PAO’s use of 188,097 SF of NRA, plus the PAO also gives credit for an additional 13,000 SF of open storage space. The PET just uses lump sum figures for ‘net rental income’ and NRA without breaking down the different rental types of office and A/C vs. non-A/C space or open storage space. This makes it much more difficult to determine what rates apply to each category and how much of each category even exists. The PET’s original size breakdown on page 3 of her evidence shows a total building size of 198,280, but that is the ‘gross’ (or possibly ‘adjusted’) building size, not the ‘rentable’ breakdown. Again, there should be some separate consideration for open storage space that apparently exists. The PET fails to provide a rent roll, which would have been very helpful in establishing current ‘market’ rents, as well as building areas for each category of space. In the second ‘blended proforma’ (using year end 2019 figures) for the subject, the PET shows total revenue at $10.13/SF collected (i.e. EGI), 40.94% expenses (i.e. $4.15/SF), [which includes 4% or $72,724 in reserves], and a loaded cap rate of 8.39% [7.25 + 1.2 2020-00257 Page 4 of 6 millage rate]. The PET concludes a value of $12,891,070 (before any COS deduction), then makes a $236,189 capital expenditure deduction for a figure of 12,555,811. Then a 10% COS deduction is made resulting in a ‘just value’ of $11,300,230. The PET uses a relatively high ‘market’ cap rate of 7.25%. The PET justifies it by the subject’s physical breakdown of space into 3 non-contiguous areas [she calls functional obsolescence] and older age of the property. The PET states on the record that the reported historical income does include income from all sources (such as open storage, etc.). There is no detailed breakdown of revenue into the different rental categories; thus, the analysis is far less than would be desired for meaningful analysis. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 2 improved sales. The first sale is from Naples on White Lake Boulevard & it was built in 2017 & sold for $67/SF, which is a 2-story Cube Smart [most likely 100% AC and could have been sold vacant]. Sale #2 is a much smaller property of only 15,316 SF on Marco Island (built in ’84) that sold for $19/SF of building area. It does not seem comparable or worthy of analysis at this hearing. The PET fails to provide any pictures of these sales, or a location map. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is extremely weak. The PET should have expanded the geographic search area and/or gone further back in time to capture more sales to help establish a more supportable estimate of value. The PET requests a just value of $12.9M, or a reduction of $1,190,280. RULING: The PET’s sales presentation is extremely weak, mainly due to building size errors reported by the PET. In rebuttal testimony, the PAO notes PET’s sale #1 has a building area of 129,930 SF (not 188,615 SF), resulting in $134.69/SF (gross). The ‘rentable’ SF is the best unit of comparison with the subject, and the rentable likely would be near 75% of the 129,930 SF; thus, the sales price/rentable SF is closer to $180 for Sale #1. The PAO notes the PET also uses the wrong building size for her Sale #2. It should have been 24,858 SF of gross building area, resulting in a figure of $74.98/SF (gross) for this 4-story 100% AC building. Again, the more appropriate indicator ‘per SF of rentable’ area would be higher and actually more supportive of the subject’s assessment at $71.06/SF rentable, and probably closer to $100 per ‘rentable’ SF. The PET’s Income Approach could have been enhanced with a better breakdown of space and the associated rental categories for each, rather than lumping all revenue together. While I can understand not the PET not preparing a full Cost Approach, land value appears to be highly significant and helps to establish H&BU. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s supported land value + impact fees equal 86.2% of the total just value, yet the subject also has almost 200,000 SF of building area that still is able to contribute additional value. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees ‘run with the land’. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO’s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined). In addition, the 8 improved sales presented by the PAO appear far more comparable and supportive of the assessment, particularly when considering the Lee County sales are characteristically inferior to some extent in 2020-00257 Page 5 of 6 location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00257: 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. 2020-00257 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00258 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00258 00272560006 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 3555 EXCHANGEAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 660,978.00 660,978.00 660,978.00 660,978.00 660,978.00 660,978.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 660,978.00 660,978.00 660,978.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00258: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented [in person] by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (FM Naples Storage 18 FL, LLC.) was represented on the telephone by Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak with Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing consists of 7 total petitions being heard together as one operating mixed-use/self-storage property. The subjects were built between 1974-1991; thus, they range in age from 29 to 46 years. There are 25 different buildings & they are not all contiguous to each other. Generally, the buildings are in three areas that are not contiguous, yet close to each other. Some of the buildings are zoned C-5 (heavy commercial), while others are zoned “I” (industrial). Most of the subject consists of storage bays; however, some of the subject has offices and service/retail space. The addresses of the subject buildings are: TP-251- 3806 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-254- 571 Airport Road, Naples, FL 34104 TP’s-255, 256, 258- 3555 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-257- 3687 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-259- 3727 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 The total adjusted building area is 198,280 SF situated upon sites that equal 568,808 SF (i.e. 12.87 acres). Some of the building are air conditioned, yet many are not. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2015 for $16,430,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 85.8% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: Given this was the first VAB Petition of the year I have heard, the VAB customarily makes a presentation related to the reasonableness of their assessments, in accordance with DOR guidelines. In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The following evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible to this specific hearing, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $14,090,280, or $71.06/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO provided a cover page, table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts & conclusions, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, regional/area analysis, building sketches, location map, zoning maps, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, H&BU comments, Cost Approach summary with Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost data), improved sales grid, improved sales location map, improved sales photos/details, Income Approach, climate-controlled rental charts, non-climate-controlled rents, outside storage rents, 2020-00258 Page 2 of 6 market rent conclusions for the subject, operating expense comparable chart, market- derived self-storage cap rates, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/ back-up data for improved sales, reconciliation, PwC Self-Storage Market rate survey, Realty Rates Survey, Cushman & Wakefield investor survey, Self-Storage Newsletter article and support for impact fees. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $21.23/SF applied to the ‘high & dry’ area of the site of 12.87 acres for a land value of $11,905,000. The PAO then adds $242,344 of impact fees, indirect costs of $68,141, and site work of $500,539. The PAO’s structuring of the Cost Approach & sequence of math is not totally correct. The impact fees should be added to the land value, given the impact fees ‘run with the land’ & are not subject to depreciation. The site work, indirect costs and building costs should be added together with the entrepreneurial profit for a subtotal of RCN. That subtotal is then subject to depreciation, with that result added to the (value of the land) + (impact fees). The result is the value indication of the Cost Approach. The PAO states entrepreneurial profit as 10% X (depreciated costs + land value). [Note: Some appraisers base profit as a factor applied to the building costs without the land. Regardless of the method, the issue is that the entrepreneurial profit should be ‘reasonable’ for the magnitude of risks involved]. Using the PAO’s method of 10% profit of $2,101,574 results. The corrected RCN would be $10,969,968. The PAO used a higher construction cost rate/SF to the A/C buildings. Depreciation of 72.9% is indicated by the Marshall data, or -$7,997,107, resulting in the depreciated value of the improvements figure of $2,972,861. This figure is then added to the (land + impact fees) figure of $12,147,344, for a final (corrected) Cost Approach indication of $15,120,205 (instead of the PAO’s figure of $15,936,000) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO should have also added additional ‘costs to achieved stabilized occupancy’, given the subject is a well- established complex already at high occupancy. Thus, the corrected version of the PAO’s Cost Approach should easily approximate $16M, if considering the costs to get to the existing stage. I do note that the subject’s combined site area is 12.87 acres (usable), divided into 3 non-contiguous areas. Because the total site is broken up the way it is, the PAO’s use of land sales ranging in size from 0.44 to 3.6 acres is still reasonable at $925,000/acre (i.e. $21.24/SF). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22-$157.64/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. Sales 4 ($116.28/SF, #5 (157.64/SF, & #8 ($144.20/SF) are in Collier County. From an average (of all 8 sales), the PAO [very fairly] concludes $90/SF X 198,280 SF = $17,845,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. While it is sometimes difficult to compare self-storage properties (due to dissimilar mixes of A/C vs. non-A/C mixes of units, it does appear from the photographs that the sales do appear sufficiently similar to the subject. This approach is given strong weight as being supportive of the PAO’s assessment, given the quantity and quality of data. Plus, it is noted that 5 of the sales are from Lee County, which is normally considered inferior to the subject’s location in the heart of Collier County. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO provides A/C, non-A/C, & open parking rent comparables. The subject does have 50 open parking stalls, according to the testimony 2020-00258 Page 3 of 6 provided. The PAO also estimated rent for the subject’s limited office/service space. The PAO indicated he was not supplied with the owner’s historical operating information for this hearing. The PAO projects [blended] rent at $201,097/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/ collection loss at 13.0%, expenses at 35%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $1,450,350 for a value indication of $19,338,000, or $97.53/SF. The PAO gives weight to a 6.3% market cap rate & loads it with a 1.2% millage rate, resulting in a loaded OAR of 7.5%. PAO’s RECONCILIATION: The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches at $17,500,000 in support of the contested just value of $14,090,280. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon good Sales Comparison Approach information showing many older properties of similar vintage. It is noted the PAO’s reasonably well supported land value + impact fees = $12,147,344, which equates to 86.2% of the contested just value, yet almost 200,000 SF of existing building area remains in productive use. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (21 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. It is noted the PET only wrote 6 petition numbers on the cover sheet, yet she noted in testimony that PET #254 is also included in her analysis. This means her evidence does include all 7 petitions, which is consistent with the PAO’s evidence package. The PET’s evidence consists of a cover page, ‘review of value and appeal position’, roster of subject addresses, folios, building sizes, land sizes, 2020 AV’s, and year built for each petition. The PET also includes a 2019 Income Statement, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey (4th Qtr. 2019), Colliers International investor survey (1st Qtr. 2020), Income Approach-Actual, Income Approach-‘Blended Proforma’ [based upon 2019 year end data], Comparable Sales grid (2 sales), Collier County’s 2020 DR-493, & various documents related to the VAB process, case law, Bulletin PTO 11-01, etc. The PET includes multiple versions of the Income Approach using ‘actual’ (2019) income and 2 versions of ‘blended proforma’ 2019 income. The PET bases these approaches on a total of 179,554 SF of rentable area. This differs form the PAO’s use of 188,097 SF of NRA, plus the PAO also gives credit for an additional 13,000 SF of open storage space. The PET just uses lump sum figures for ‘net rental income’ and NRA without breaking down the different rental types of office and A/C vs. non-A/C space or open storage space. This makes it much more difficult to determine what rates apply to each category and how much of each category even exists. The PET’s original size breakdown on page 3 of her evidence shows a total building size of 198,280, but that is the ‘gross’ (or possibly ‘adjusted’) building size, not the ‘rentable’ breakdown. Again, there should be some separate consideration for open storage space that apparently exists. The PET fails to provide a rent roll, which would have been very helpful in establishing current ‘market’ rents, as well as building areas for each category of space. In the second ‘blended proforma’ (using year end 2019 figures) for the subject, the PET shows total revenue at $10.13/SF collected (i.e. EGI), 40.94% expenses (i.e. $4.15/SF), [which includes 4% or $72,724 in reserves], and a loaded cap rate of 8.39% [7.25 + 1.2 2020-00258 Page 4 of 6 millage rate]. The PET concludes a value of $12,891,070 (before any COS deduction), then makes a $236,189 capital expenditure deduction for a figure of 12,555,811. Then a 10% COS deduction is made resulting in a ‘just value’ of $11,300,230. The PET uses a relatively high ‘market’ cap rate of 7.25%. The PET justifies it by the subject’s physical breakdown of space into 3 non-contiguous areas [she calls functional obsolescence] and older age of the property. The PET states on the record that the reported historical income does include income from all sources (such as open storage, etc.). There is no detailed breakdown of revenue into the different rental categories; thus, the analysis is far less than would be desired for meaningful analysis. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 2 improved sales. The first sale is from Naples on White Lake Boulevard & it was built in 2017 & sold for $67/SF, which is a 2-story Cube Smart [most likely 100% AC and could have been sold vacant]. Sale #2 is a much smaller property of only 15,316 SF on Marco Island (built in ’84) that sold for $19/SF of building area. It does not seem comparable or worthy of analysis at this hearing. The PET fails to provide any pictures of these sales, or a location map. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is extremely weak. The PET should have expanded the geographic search area and/or gone further back in time to capture more sales to help establish a more supportable estimate of value. The PET requests a just value of $12.9M, or a reduction of $1,190,280. RULING: The PET’s sales presentation is extremely weak, mainly due to building size errors reported by the PET. In rebuttal testimony, the PAO notes PET’s sale #1 has a building area of 129,930 SF (not 188,615 SF), resulting in $134.69/SF (gross). The ‘rentable’ SF is the best unit of comparison with the subject, and the rentable likely would be near 75% of the 129,930 SF; thus, the sales price/rentable SF is closer to $180 for Sale #1. The PAO notes the PET also uses the wrong building size for her Sale #2. It should have been 24,858 SF of gross building area, resulting in a figure of $74.98/SF (gross) for this 4-story 100% AC building. Again, the more appropriate indicator ‘per SF of rentable’ area would be higher and actually more supportive of the subject’s assessment at $71.06/SF rentable, and probably closer to $100 per ‘rentable’ SF. The PET’s Income Approach could have been enhanced with a better breakdown of space and the associated rental categories for each, rather than lumping all revenue together. While I can understand not the PET not preparing a full Cost Approach, land value appears to be highly significant and helps to establish H&BU. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s supported land value + impact fees equal 86.2% of the total just value, yet the subject also has almost 200,000 SF of building area that still is able to contribute additional value. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees ‘run with the land’. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO’s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined). In addition, the 8 improved sales presented by the PAO appear far more comparable and supportive of the assessment, particularly when considering the Lee County sales are characteristically inferior to some extent in 2020-00258 Page 5 of 6 location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00258: 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. 2020-00258 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00259 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00259 00278640001 ANDRES VENGOECHEA 3727 EXCHANGEAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 1,762,424.00 1,762,424.00 1,762,424.00 1,392,511.00 1,392,511.00 1,392,511.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,392,511.00 1,392,511.00 1,392,511.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/21/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00259: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented [in person] by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (FM Naples Storage 18 FL, LLC.) was represented on the telephone by Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak with Paradigm Tax Group. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: This hearing consists of 7 total petitions being heard together as one operating mixed-use/self-storage property. The subjects were built between 1974-1991; thus, they range in age from 29 to 46 years. There are 25 different buildings & they are not all contiguous to each other. Generally, the buildings are in three areas that are not contiguous, yet close to each other. Some of the buildings are zoned C-5 (heavy commercial), while others are zoned “I” (industrial). Most of the subject consists of storage bays; however, some of the subject has offices and service/retail space. The addresses of the subject buildings are: TP-251- 3806 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-254- 571 Airport Road, Naples, FL 34104 TP’s-255, 256, 258- 3555 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-257- 3687 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 TP-259- 3727 Exchange Avenue, Naples, FL 34104 The total adjusted building area is 198,280 SF situated upon sites that equal 568,808 SF (i.e. 12.87 acres). Some of the building are air conditioned, yet many are not. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in January 2015 for $16,430,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 85.8% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: Given this was the first VAB Petition of the year I have heard, the VAB customarily makes a presentation related to the reasonableness of their assessments, in accordance with DOR guidelines. In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The following evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible to this specific hearing, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $14,090,280, or $71.06/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO provided a cover page, table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts & conclusions, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, regional/area analysis, building sketches, location map, zoning maps, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, H&BU comments, Cost Approach summary with Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost data), improved sales grid, improved sales location map, improved sales photos/details, Income Approach, climate-controlled rental charts, non-climate-controlled rents, outside storage rents, 2020-00259 Page 2 of 6 market rent conclusions for the subject, operating expense comparable chart, market- derived self-storage cap rates, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/ back-up data for improved sales, reconciliation, PwC Self-Storage Market rate survey, Realty Rates Survey, Cushman & Wakefield investor survey, Self-Storage Newsletter article and support for impact fees. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $21.23/SF applied to the ‘high & dry’ area of the site of 12.87 acres for a land value of $11,905,000. The PAO then adds $242,344 of impact fees, indirect costs of $68,141, and site work of $500,539. The PAO’s structuring of the Cost Approach & sequence of math is not totally correct. The impact fees should be added to the land value, given the impact fees ‘run with the land’ & are not subject to depreciation. The site work, indirect costs and building costs should be added together with the entrepreneurial profit for a subtotal of RCN. That subtotal is then subject to depreciation, with that result added to the (value of the land) + (impact fees). The result is the value indication of the Cost Approach. The PAO states entrepreneurial profit as 10% X (depreciated costs + land value). [Note: Some appraisers base profit as a factor applied to the building costs without the land. Regardless of the method, the issue is that the entrepreneurial profit should be ‘reasonable’ for the magnitude of risks involved]. Using the PAO’s method of 10% profit of $2,101,574 results. The corrected RCN would be $10,969,968. The PAO used a higher construction cost rate/SF to the A/C buildings. Depreciation of 72.9% is indicated by the Marshall data, or -$7,997,107, resulting in the depreciated value of the improvements figure of $2,972,861. This figure is then added to the (land + impact fees) figure of $12,147,344, for a final (corrected) Cost Approach indication of $15,120,205 (instead of the PAO’s figure of $15,936,000) to support the subject’s assessment. The PAO should have also added additional ‘costs to achieved stabilized occupancy’, given the subject is a well- established complex already at high occupancy. Thus, the corrected version of the PAO’s Cost Approach should easily approximate $16M, if considering the costs to get to the existing stage. I do note that the subject’s combined site area is 12.87 acres (usable), divided into 3 non-contiguous areas. Because the total site is broken up the way it is, the PAO’s use of land sales ranging in size from 0.44 to 3.6 acres is still reasonable at $925,000/acre (i.e. $21.24/SF). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22-$157.64/SF, and 5 of those sales are in Lee County. Sales 4 ($116.28/SF, #5 (157.64/SF, & #8 ($144.20/SF) are in Collier County. From an average (of all 8 sales), the PAO [very fairly] concludes $90/SF X 198,280 SF = $17,845,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. While it is sometimes difficult to compare self-storage properties (due to dissimilar mixes of A/C vs. non-A/C mixes of units, it does appear from the photographs that the sales do appear sufficiently similar to the subject. This approach is given strong weight as being supportive of the PAO’s assessment, given the quantity and quality of data. Plus, it is noted that 5 of the sales are from Lee County, which is normally considered inferior to the subject’s location in the heart of Collier County. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PAO provides A/C, non-A/C, & open parking rent comparables. The subject does have 50 open parking stalls, according to the testimony 2020-00259 Page 3 of 6 provided. The PAO also estimated rent for the subject’s limited office/service space. The PAO indicated he was not supplied with the owner’s historical operating information for this hearing. The PAO projects [blended] rent at $201,097/SF gross (or NNN), vacancy/ collection loss at 13.0%, expenses at 35%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $1,450,350 for a value indication of $19,338,000, or $97.53/SF. The PAO gives weight to a 6.3% market cap rate & loads it with a 1.2% millage rate, resulting in a loaded OAR of 7.5%. PAO’s RECONCILIATION: The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches at $17,500,000 in support of the contested just value of $14,090,280. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon good Sales Comparison Approach information showing many older properties of similar vintage. It is noted the PAO’s reasonably well supported land value + impact fees = $12,147,344, which equates to 86.2% of the contested just value, yet almost 200,000 SF of existing building area remains in productive use. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (21 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. It is noted the PET only wrote 6 petition numbers on the cover sheet, yet she noted in testimony that PET #254 is also included in her analysis. This means her evidence does include all 7 petitions, which is consistent with the PAO’s evidence package. The PET’s evidence consists of a cover page, ‘review of value and appeal position’, roster of subject addresses, folios, building sizes, land sizes, 2020 AV’s, and year built for each petition. The PET also includes a 2019 Income Statement, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey (4th Qtr. 2019), Colliers International investor survey (1st Qtr. 2020), Income Approach-Actual, Income Approach-‘Blended Proforma’ [based upon 2019 year end data], Comparable Sales grid (2 sales), Collier County’s 2020 DR-493, & various documents related to the VAB process, case law, Bulletin PTO 11-01, etc. The PET includes multiple versions of the Income Approach using ‘actual’ (2019) income and 2 versions of ‘blended proforma’ 2019 income. The PET bases these approaches on a total of 179,554 SF of rentable area. This differs form the PAO’s use of 188,097 SF of NRA, plus the PAO also gives credit for an additional 13,000 SF of open storage space. The PET just uses lump sum figures for ‘net rental income’ and NRA without breaking down the different rental types of office and A/C vs. non-A/C space or open storage space. This makes it much more difficult to determine what rates apply to each category and how much of each category even exists. The PET’s original size breakdown on page 3 of her evidence shows a total building size of 198,280, but that is the ‘gross’ (or possibly ‘adjusted’) building size, not the ‘rentable’ breakdown. Again, there should be some separate consideration for open storage space that apparently exists. The PET fails to provide a rent roll, which would have been very helpful in establishing current ‘market’ rents, as well as building areas for each category of space. In the second ‘blended proforma’ (using year end 2019 figures) for the subject, the PET shows total revenue at $10.13/SF collected (i.e. EGI), 40.94% expenses (i.e. $4.15/SF), [which includes 4% or $72,724 in reserves], and a loaded cap rate of 8.39% [7.25 + 1.2 2020-00259 Page 4 of 6 millage rate]. The PET concludes a value of $12,891,070 (before any COS deduction), then makes a $236,189 capital expenditure deduction for a figure of 12,555,811. Then a 10% COS deduction is made resulting in a ‘just value’ of $11,300,230. The PET uses a relatively high ‘market’ cap rate of 7.25%. The PET justifies it by the subject’s physical breakdown of space into 3 non-contiguous areas [she calls functional obsolescence] and older age of the property. The PET states on the record that the reported historical income does include income from all sources (such as open storage, etc.). There is no detailed breakdown of revenue into the different rental categories; thus, the analysis is far less than would be desired for meaningful analysis. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 2 improved sales. The first sale is from Naples on White Lake Boulevard & it was built in 2017 & sold for $67/SF, which is a 2-story Cube Smart [most likely 100% AC and could have been sold vacant]. Sale #2 is a much smaller property of only 15,316 SF on Marco Island (built in ’84) that sold for $19/SF of building area. It does not seem comparable or worthy of analysis at this hearing. The PET fails to provide any pictures of these sales, or a location map. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is extremely weak. The PET should have expanded the geographic search area and/or gone further back in time to capture more sales to help establish a more supportable estimate of value. The PET requests a just value of $12.9M, or a reduction of $1,190,280. RULING: The PET’s sales presentation is extremely weak, mainly due to building size errors reported by the PET. In rebuttal testimony, the PAO notes PET’s sale #1 has a building area of 129,930 SF (not 188,615 SF), resulting in $134.69/SF (gross). The ‘rentable’ SF is the best unit of comparison with the subject, and the rentable likely would be near 75% of the 129,930 SF; thus, the sales price/rentable SF is closer to $180 for Sale #1. The PAO notes the PET also uses the wrong building size for her Sale #2. It should have been 24,858 SF of gross building area, resulting in a figure of $74.98/SF (gross) for this 4-story 100% AC building. Again, the more appropriate indicator ‘per SF of rentable’ area would be higher and actually more supportive of the subject’s assessment at $71.06/SF rentable, and probably closer to $100 per ‘rentable’ SF. The PET’s Income Approach could have been enhanced with a better breakdown of space and the associated rental categories for each, rather than lumping all revenue together. While I can understand not the PET not preparing a full Cost Approach, land value appears to be highly significant and helps to establish H&BU. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s supported land value + impact fees equal 86.2% of the total just value, yet the subject also has almost 200,000 SF of building area that still is able to contribute additional value. The underlying land value is the basic building block of H&BU, and the impact fees ‘run with the land’. The weight of evidence favors the PAO. The PAO’s assessment appears reasonable and has better support, particularly with regard to H&BU and a market-oriented land value + impact fees that (combined). In addition, the 8 improved sales presented by the PAO appear far more comparable and supportive of the assessment, particularly when considering the Lee County sales are characteristically inferior to some extent in 2020-00259 Page 5 of 6 location. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00259: 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. 2020-00259 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00265 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00265: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) representing the owner is Paradigm (Ms. Jessica Vachiratevanurak) via telephone. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a multi-tenant medical office building (MOB) with (surgical outpatient facilities) built in 2002. Surgical centers have more specialized features that are more expensive to build than conventional MOB’s. The subject’s address is 990 9th Street North in Naples. The adjusted building area is 15,831 SF situated upon a site of 44,200 SF (i.e. 1.01 acres) zoned HC (Highway Commercial). The subject is located immediately north of downtown Naples. The building appears to be modern, attractive, and in fairly good condition from the pictures provided. There is some degree of covered parking provided. The subject is also not far from a hospital, which is an advantage for any MOB. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last had an open-market sale for $6,736,100 in August 2012. The contested just value is 60.9% of that prior sale. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $4,100,163, or $259.00/SF of adjusted building area, or $92.76/SF of site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, possible witness list of PAO employees, aerial photographs, subject’s building sketch, exterior and interior photographs, location map, street location map, zoning map, regional & neighborhood market analysis, land sales summary grid, land sale location map, land sales aerials and brief details, Cost Approach exhibit, Sales Comparison summary grid, improved sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach exhibit, Income Approach exhibit, comparable sales photographs, prior deed, PwC Cap Rate Analysis (4th Qtr. 2019), RERC 4th Qtr. 2019 South Investment Criteria, & impact fee calculations. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated the building cost new at $5,219,500, site improvements at $287,072, indirect costs at $63,156, entrepreneurial profit at $587,295, less depreciation of $2,348,775 for a total Replacement Cost New (RCN - depreciation) of $3,808,248. The PAO provides 9 primary land sales (with good back-up documentation), plus two (2) additional sales the PAO calls ‘noteworthy’ because they are from the prior real estate boom and are helpful in the valuation of the subject site. Sale #10 closed for $53.91/SF in 2005, while Sale #11 closed for $46.07 in 2004. The PAO notes that land values approximate $100/SF in downtown Naples, and then drop the further northward as the distance increases. Land Sale #1 was purchased for a Walgreens at [corrected address of] 1191 Tamiami Trail North, which is much further north along the Trail. It is the most recent land sale with a closing price of $30.38/SF. The PAO estimates land value at $60.00/SF ($2,652,000), plus $487,572 of impact fees for a total of $3,139,572 (which equates to 76.6% of the contested just value of $4,100,163). Given the subject’s relatively close proximity to downtown, the $60/SF land value estimate appears to be reasonable. The land value + impact fees is then added to the depreciated 2020-00265 Page 2 of 5 value of the improvements resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate by the PAO of $6,948,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 15 improved sales from the Naples market area. Seven (7) are indicated to be medical office buildings (MOB’s), while the remaining 8 sales are other types of office sales. Sale #7 (19,092 SF) is noted to be a medical office condominium surgical center that sold leased fee for $440/SF. The only other sale similar in size to the subject is Improved Sale #8 (Medical Arts Center) that has 14,766 SF that sold for $343/SF in late 2017. The vast majority of the 15 sales are much smaller than the subject and many are single-user buildings; whereas, the subject is a multi-tenant property apparently struggling with occupancy. The PAO concludes $375/SF X 15,831 SF = $5,937,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO also provides four (4) ‘alternate’ improved office sales. Alternate #3 (a 3-story building constructed in ’73 with 16,398 SF of building area) is at 6760 Tamiami Trail North & it is just 3 blocks from the subject. It sold on a leased fee basis for $365/SF in late 2019 & it appears to lend good support, even though it is a much older building. Photographs and descriptions of all improved sales (including the 4 alternates) are provided in the PAO’s evidence package. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $35/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 10.0%, expenses [excluding real estate taxes] at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.70% to NOI of $374,008 for a value indication of $4,857,000, or $306.80/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches to a value of $5,000,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted 37 pages of evidence via 1 Axia download. Evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provided a cover sheet, ‘review of value & appeal position’ (requesting a just value of $3.5M), subject’s tax roll information from the PAO’s web site, subject’s CoStar summary sheet (indicating it is a 3-star property out of 5 possible stars), RERC Investment Criteria (2nd tier properties for the 4th Quarter 2019), CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey (2nd half of 2019), lease comp details from CoStar, Income Approach, a Sales Comparison Approach (3 sales), DR-493, & miscellaneous tax law/DOR information. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PET provides 3 improved sales. Sale #1 is disregarded because it closed in April 2020 & is not timely for consideration at this hearing. That leaves the PET with 2 remaining sales. PET’s sale #2 (1012 Goodlette Road N) has only 5,760 SF & was built in ’91. It closed in 8/2019 for $143/SF (before COS) & the CoStar information indicates it is a multi-tenant medical office building with a 3.47 per 1,000 parking ratio (i.e. 1 stall per 288 SF of NRA, which is less than ideal for a medical building). However, the sale of 5,760 SF is for an office condo unit in that building in a secondary location. PET’s Sale #3 (also PAO’s Sale #2) has only 7,068 SF & was built in 2007 as a single-user medical building in a secondary location with lower land value (warranting a large location adjustment). It closed for $225/SF (before COS). 2020-00265 Page 3 of 5 The PET’s 2 sales (each less than half the subject’s size & neither located near downtown on the North Trail) fail to meet the comparability test for the subject, which is a multi-tenant MOB of 15,831 SF with a surgical center just north of downtown. I give no weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach, due to the lack of a sufficient quantity of sales. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PET projects rent at $27/SF NNN, vacancy/ collection loss at 8.0%, expenses [excluding real estate taxes] at 20%, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.50% to NOI of $314,594 for a value indication of $4,194,582 (before COS consideration), or $3,565,394 after COS consideration. RULING: The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach has been disregarded as too weak for serious consideration. The PET indicated she has never been inside the subject. Given the subject is a specialty form of a MOB product type, it warrants a good understanding of how it operates with its tenants and also the type of specialty features provided, given they tend to be very expensive. The PAO has visited the interior of the property, which is also close to a hospital. Eight (8) of the rent comps provided by the PET come from the same building stated to be in the ‘East Naples’ submarket. All are advertised at $25/SF NNN and some of those are also called ‘shell space’. The subject does not reflect shell space. The PET only provides two more rent comps (at $25 NNN & $26NNN). The PET uses a very high expense ratio of 20% for a triple net lease arrangement with no explanation. It does not appear the PET gives extra rent credit for the additional surgical benefits at the subject, which do not appear to be present at her rent comparables. The PAO provided 3 approaches to value to support the assessment. In this case, the subject is fairly close to downtown Naples; thus, the land value is fairly significant. The PAO’s estimated land value + impact fees are supported at $3,199,572, which is 76.6% of the total just value. The 2-story building is substantial at 15,831 SF and appears to be in reasonably good condition, given it was built in 2002. The PAO’s Cost Approach is the highest approach presented by the PAO, which could indicate there is some degree of obsolescence (or lease-up) deduction warranted that is not addressed. However, the PAO gives greater weight to his Income Approach & Sales Comparison Approaches anyway. It does appear the building adds significantly to the overall property value. The PAO does present a leased fee sale of a surgery center as PAO’s Improved Sale #7 that closed for $440/SF in 2018. The PET tried to research that sale by examining its deed. She questions the validity fo that sale, so that sale could perhaps be erroneous. PAO’s Improved Sale #8 ($343/SF for 14,766 SF built in 2001) appears to be the next best sale for supporting the subject’s just value of $259/SF built in 2002. In reference to the Income Approach, the PET presents a NNN analysis at $27 (using a very high expense ratio), while the PAO’s Income Approach is based upon $35/SF gross. The additional $8/SF in rent is not at all unusual for the extra expenses that would be included. A CAM fee of $7-$10/SF [without taxes] would not be unusual at all for this type of specialized space, so it adds credibility to the PAO’s Income Approach. As a ‘test of reasonableness’ I have divided the contested just value by 85% resulting in a figure of $4,823,721, then deducted the PAO’s land value + impact fees. This results in a building & site work contribution of $1,684,149, or $106/SF of the subject’s building area. Then after reviewing the subject’s age of 18 years and (fairly attractive) 2020-00265 Page 4 of 5 photographs I question if this specialized surgical center building is worth at least $106 per square foot. Without any other information presented at the hearing to the contrary, it would certainly seem it is not unreasonable that the building should contribute at least $106/SF. Therefore, based upon the greater weight of the PAO’s Income Approach, weight & preponderance of other evidence (including my test of reasonableness), the data favors supporting the PAO’s just value for the subject. Perhaps if the PET had actually visited the subject and investigated other issues, occupancy, and financial operations in greater detail then there could be factors that could warrant a reduction. However, such details were not presented at this hearing; thus, the assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00265: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00265 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00273 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00273 12982160001 ARCHER C GILLESPIE REVOC TRUST 555 KETCH DR NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 1,124,947.00 1,124,947.00 1,000,000.00 624,947.00 624,947.00 500,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 574,947.00 574,947.00 450,000.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00273: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, and Mr. Clyde Quinby. The Petitioner (PET), was Mr. Archer Gillespie, owner of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,124,947. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a single-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,868-sf and an adjusted building size of 3,321-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .36 acres or 15,681.60-sf. The property was built in 1969. The property sold in April 2019 for $908,000. The property is located at 555 Ketch Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 38 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00273 Page 2 of 7 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and the Sales Comparison Approach, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the subject property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 6 land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are vacant land sales occurred from March 2019 to January 2020. The land sales range in size from 12,196.80-sf to 16,552.80-sf and range in price from $71.35 to $81.99/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $77.00/sf or $1,207,483. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated building cost is estimated at $89,961, including site improvements, the land value is estimated at $1,207,483 for a total cost of $1,297,444. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 7 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from February 2019 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 1,914-sf to 3,339-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 14,374.8-sf to 17,859.6-sf. The buildings were built from 1967 to 1972. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $273.00 to $418.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $354.00 and a median of $363.00. PAO reconciled a value at $354.00/sf of building area including land or $1,176,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 57-page report which consisted of a photo of the subject, the listing sheet for the subject with a listing price of $1,100,000, dated 1/18. PET included the property inspection report, prepared by Able Home Inspection, dated 3/20/19. The inspection report describes the condition of the property with photos of the defects. PET included a comparable sale chart, photo of the subject and aerial as well as a proposal from B.J. Excavating Inc. to demolish the home at a cost of $35,400. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the property was purchased 4/19 for $908,000, this was a fair market sale; the subject property was listed 1/18 for $1,100,000, and had been on the market for a period of time before the sale. PET indicated the property had adequate market exposure. PET indicated the property was in poor condition at time of sale. The roof leaked and 2020-00273 Page 3 of 7 caused damage to the inside of the house, there was termite damage, mold and mildew, the electrical and plumbing needed repair, the lanai had collapsed; and the house had original windows. PET provided a sale chart with 9 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. PET provided the sale price, list date and sale date for these 9 sales. The properties sold from 5/19 to 9/20; the sale price range is $908,000 to $1,050,000. PET provided 4 sales on Ketch Drive (including the sale of the subject); the property located next door to the subject sold 8/19 for $1,015,000, is 2,571-sf in building size and land is 16,117.2-sf, the building had a new roof and new air conditioner, a new perimeter fence, newer windows with shutters and better landscaping; this property was listed 3/19 and sold 8/19. PET provided the sale of a property, directly across the street from the subject, that sold 4/20 (outside the appraisal date of 1/1/20) for $975,000; this property was demolished; the listing date was 2/18 and had been on the market for a longer period of time than the subject. PET provided another sale on Ketch Drive, 5 doors from the subject, this property sold 2/20 for $1,050,000; the building had been improved with a new roof and new impact windows; this property was listed 11/19. PET’s remaining sales are located in the neighborhood and 2 of these properties sold from 7/19(listed 11/18) to 9/19 (listed 2/19), the remaining sales sold in 2020 and were not considered by Special Magistrate (SM). These two properties sold from $960,000 to $975,000 and both properties were in better condition than the subject, at the time of sale. PET indicated the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value and is supported by the sales on the street. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when 2020-00273 Page 4 of 7 determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. 2020-00273 Page 5 of 7 PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that the seller was incapacitated and it was not the owner’s decision to sell the property; PAO considers this a type of distressed sale, thus the low value. PAO indicated the house was not habitable at the time of sale and was not habitable as of 1/1/20. PAO indicated the value lies in the land only PAO indicated PET had a homestead on the property. As rebuttal, PET indicated that Ketch Drive is not at the same state of redevelopment as other streets in the neighborhood where properties are being bought and redeveloped. PET indicated 4 sales (including the subject) on Ketch Drive are the best indicator of value for the street. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. The subject property sold in April 2019 for $908,000, and property values have increases since the date of sale. PET provided three additional sales, that occurred on Ketch Drive, two of which occurred in the year 2020, outside the value date of 1/1/20; however, these sales provide a good value trend for the street and indicate a value for the subject in the range of $975,000 to $1,050,000.00. SM has estimated the just value at $1,000,000.00 PET demonstrated that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00273: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption 2020-00273 Page 6 of 7 of Correctness my showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $1,000,000. 2020-00273 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00276 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00276: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Jeep Quinby. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Public Storage self-storage facility built between 1999-2001. The subject’s address is 7325 Davis Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 133,444 SF situated upon a site of 235,384 SF (i.e. 5.403 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the prior 5 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $8,857,422 or $66.38/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Special Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, PwC National Self-Storage Market analysis, RealtyRates.com Investor Survey, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey, and Colliers International Self-Storage Newsletter, the subject’s internet advertised rates, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at [$1M/acre] $20/SF ($4,708,000), plus $163,099 of impact fees, depreciated value of the improvements at $5,102,090 for a total Cost Approach indication of $9,973,000 (before COS deduction). The PAO’s land value is supported by many sales of self-storage sites that have the same use as the subject. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales, 4 of which are located in Collier County with the remaining 5 in Lee County. The PAO provides 4 additional sales during 2019 & 2018 that are 100% climate-controlled operations. The PAO concludes $110/SF X 133,444 SF of adjusted area = $14,679,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent for the ‘rentable’ area (not the gross) with the climate-controlled space @ $18/SF and the non-A/C space at $12.50/SF. V&C is estimated at 13%, expenses at 35.0%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of $1,027,564 for a value indication of $13,701,000, or $102.67/SF of adjusted space (before COS consideration). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 76 pages of the subject’s evidence via 1 submittal in Axia. The PET was originally requesting a just value of $7,084,000, based 2020-00276 Page 2 of 3 upon his Sales Comparison Approach & his Income Approach. Rather than go to the additional details of evidence presented at this hearing, it is important to note that the PET quickly realized early in his testimony that his gross building area was significantly understated at 98,206 (rather than the PAO’s 133,444 SF). Due to the wide discrepancy, the PET realized the PAO’s just value was reasonable and did not wish to further argue this case. RULING: The PET used the wrong building size that was much less than the actual gross building area. That error caused the PET to significantly undervalue the property. Except where stated otherwise earlier in this ruling, evidence test were applied & all evidence previously described was admissible, relevant & credible. Essentially, the PET’s entire valuation/analysis is irrelevant and not credible because it is based upon the incorrect building size. The weight & preponderance of evidence favored the PAO, who presented three approaches to value in support of the just value of $8,857,422. Furthermore, the PAO used the correct gross building area, which is undisputed by the PET. The PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00276: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00276 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00277 Page 1 of 6 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00277: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Public Storage self-storage facility built in 1986, 1988, & 1990. The subject’s address is 3555 Radio Road, Naples, Florida. The adjusted [not rentable] building area is 71,628 SF situated upon a site of 194,713 SF (i.e. 4.47 acres). The PET reports the subject to be at 93.8% occupancy on the assessment date. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in April 2016 for $3,955,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $5,931,658 or $82.81/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s last deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive data sheet, PwC National Self-Storage Market analysis, RealtyRates.com Investor Survey, Cushman & Wakefield Self-Storage Investor Survey, and Colliers International Self-Storage Newsletter, the subject’s internet advertised rates, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20/SF X 194,713 SF = $3,894,000, plus $87,546 of impact fees for a total of $3,981,546 (which is 67.1% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 5 industrial land sale indicators, plus 9 self-storage land sale indicators, and 2 trending land sale indicators that closed after the assessment date. Actually, the PAO’s first self-storage land sale (5135 Tamiami Trail East) also closed in April well after 1/1/20, so there are really 3 “trending” sales & 8 (not 9) self-storage sales that closed prior to the assessment date. The PAO’s land value estimate at $20 appears to be very well supported. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements (inclusive of site work & entrepreneurial profit) at $1,785,760. After adding in the land value & impact fees, the resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $5,767,000 (before COS consideration). In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 9 sales that closed between 2015 and 2019. Four (4) of the 9 sales were in Collier County, while the remaining 5 are located in Lee County. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $69.22 [in Ft. Myers] - $157.64/SF (in Naples). The PAO concludes $100/SF X 71,628 SF of adjusted area = $7,163,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. [Note: The PAO 2020-00277 Page 2 of 6 was consistent in his Sales Comparison Approach by comparing ‘adjusted’ to ‘adjusted’ square feet with the comparable sales. There is nothing wrong with using the NRA, in fact it is preferred when it is known (or can be reasonably estimated). However, it is important to be consistent. In self-storage facilities, there can be lost space due to the rental office, hallways, bathrooms, and (when applicable) a manager’s apartment.] Among the Collier County sales, Sale #4 was a 1/2018 sale for $116.28/SF, Sale #5 was a 3/2017 sale for $157.64/SF, #8 was a 10/2016 sale (as part of a portfolio of many properties) for $144.20/SF of adjusted area, and Sale #9 was a 12/2015 sale of multiple (mostly older) buildings that also included some retail space on Airport Road. The subject’s assessment of $5,849,116 or $81.66/SF of adjusted building area; appears reasonable by virtue of these sales. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $13.525/SF [i.e. 3 significant digits to be accurate] applied to the subject’s adjusted SF. That rate of $13,525 is actually a ‘blend’ of A/C, non-A/C, & open storage space. Vacancy/collection loss was estimated at 13.0% [PET was 12.5%], expenses at 35.0% [PET @ 37.94%], and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.0% [PET uses 7.895%] to NOI of $527,190 for a value indication of $7,029,000, or $101.98/SF of adjusted space. As stated, the PAO did give some consideration to open storage revenue. Aerial photo evidence appears to indicate approximately 14 open trailer/boat spaces. The PET failed to recognize this revenue source. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 47 pages of the subject’s evidence [via 1 submittal in Axia] and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET provides a Summary of Evidence Sheet, subject’s tax roll summary sheet, subject’s Trim Notice, subject’s aerial photograph, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market rent data, CoStar cap rate data, mini warehouse market expense analysis, 2020 US Self-storage Investment Forecast, mini warehouse insurance market rate analysis, Self-Storage Cap Rate Extraction (from Florida sales), CBRE Self- Storage Expense Report, RealtyRates.com investor survey, National Self-Storage Report (by Yardi Matrix), various internet storage advertisements, Comparable Sales chart of 5 sales, comparables CoStar summary sheet with photographs, comparable tax roll sheets, and the hearing notice. The PET seeks a value reduction to $5,240,000, which was revised at the hearing from PET’s original request of $4,702,000 stated on the cover page of his evidence package. (Note: My 2019 VAB ruling on the subject lowered the subject’s assessment to that same figure of $5,240,000). The PET includes an Income Approach originally based upon 64,338 SF, as stated in the PET’s evidence package. At the hearing, the PET wanted to revise his Income Approach based upon 71,628 SF, which is the subject’s ‘gross’ SF, not its net rentable area (NRA) as used by the PAO in the PAO’s Income Approach. Thus, the following figures reflect my imputed recalculations based upon 71,628 SF using factors and/or rates consistent with the PET’s original pro-forma. Revenue is based upon $12.50/SF applied to 71,628 gross SF, V&C is projected at 12.5%, expenses at $4.15/SF, and a loaded cap rate of 7.895% [6.75% + 1.145% millage rate] applied to NOI of $504,550. This results in a value indication of $6,390,754 (before 2020-00277 Page 3 of 6 COS consideration). The PET apparently did not visit the subject and did not get many of the easily obtainable reports that could have been generated by the owner (or on-site manager) related to the unit mix (i.e. number of units by size), indication as to how much space has A/C, open storage spaces (and rents), etc. The PET does not know the ratio of climate-controlled (A/C) space in the property. The PAO did make a good faith attempt to differentiate rents applicable to the type of space, based upon physical observations. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach chart with 5 sales. Sale #2 closed in May 2020 & has been disregarded from consideration; thus, the 4 remaining sales remain with 1 sale (12/2019) in Bradenton (Manatee County), two sales during 2019 in Lee County, and one sale in Collier County of an older property (1984) half the subject’s building size on Marco Island that closed during 2019. The Marco Island sale appears to be a 3-story building that is 100% A/C, and it sold for $164/SF of its land area. I disregard it from consideration, as it is physically a much different type of property than the subject. Sale #1 was built in 2018 & very likely was not stabilized, given its size of 89,450 SF. That would imply it sold for less than what it would have if it were stabilized like the subject. Overall, the PET provides 3 sales that are worthy of consideration & none are in Collier County. However, it is difficult to compare sales to a given subject without knowing the ratio of climate-controlled units to the whole property. RULING: I heard this case in a VAB hearing for the 2019 tax cycle & in that ruling I mentioned the need to account for open storage. The PET fails to consider open storage revenue. Aerial photo evidence appears to indicate approximately 14 open trailer/boat spaces. Had the PET walked the subject property, this would have been evident, given it is quite evident from the aerial photographs. Both could have also included ‘other income’, which is common to these facilities for ancillary services provided. The PAO’s Cost Approach appears low relative to the PET’s other two approaches because the PAO failed to include lease-up costs to get to its current (i.e. ‘stabilized’ occupancy). Roughly speaking, 1.5 to 2 years of NOI loss would not have been unusual, which is a significant amount of money. As for the Income Approaches for both parties to the hearing, it appears both leave questions as to the unit count, mix, A/C vs. non-A/C space, and open storage revenue. From the photographic evidence, there is outdoor storage revenue not accounted for by the PET, yet the PAO does account for a nominal amount. Aerial photo evidence appears to indicate at least 14 open trailer/boat spaces. While I understand the analysis of self- storage facilities takes some skill, it also takes due diligence to verify the physical nature of the property, and in a similar fashion the nature of the comparable sales. I give greater weight to the PAO’s Income Approach as compared to the PET’s (revised) Income Approach, because the PET fails to provide revenue estimates for each class of space being rented (i.e. non-A/C vs. A/C especially). Given the PET’s client is the owner of the property, it is incumbent upon the PET (especially) to be able to get that type of information to better address this topic. The PET (in particular) has no excuse for the failure to provide an accurate physical breakdown of the quantity and nature of space offered for rent at the subject property. In cases where the property owner is not 2020-00277 Page 4 of 6 cooperative, the PAO has other means of obtaining better information via an analysis of blueprints, conducting a better site inspection, and checking with other sources of information. This goes for the subject, as well as the comparable sales. Rental information is easily available, given almost all self-storage facilities advertise on the internet. For this 2020 tax year, the PAO did make a better attempt (compared to 2019) at addressing the mix of subject space. In reference to improved sales, the PAO provides a broader analysis and sampling of sales. Conversely, only 3 of the 5 sales provided by the PET were worthy of consideration, and PET’s Sale #1 (built in 2018) probably was not stabilized when it sold for $79/SF of its gross building area. As a ‘test of reasonableness’, I have compared the subject’s “assessment per SF of land area’ of $30.46 to the corresponding sales data that has relatively similar FAR’s (or LTB’s). PAO sales 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and PET’s sale 1 (possibly not stabilized) have indicators/SF of land as follows: $37.98, $32.46, $51.77, $42.24, $20.14, $44.01, $28.88, and $35.54, respectively. The average of those 8 indicators is $36.78/SF & the average FAR of those 8 sales is 36.4%, based upon the gross building areas. The subject’s FAR happens to be extremely close at 36.8%. The contested just value equates to $30.46/SF of site area, which happens to be 82.8% of $36.78/SF from the 8 comparable sales; thus, there is adequate COS consideration. This happens to be a fairly good ‘test of reasonableness’, given 8 closed sales appear to support the PAO’s contested just value via this methodology. While it is preferred to have much more accurate information regarding the mix of space (especially from the PET who has direct access to his client), there are other methods of determining reasonableness. Except where stated otherwise earlier in this ruling, evidence test were applied & all evidence previously described was admissible, relevant & credible. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO; thus, the assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00277: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the 2020-00277 Page 5 of 6 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. 2020-00277 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00280 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00280: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, and Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 280 & 281 were heard together as one operating property known as ‘Berkshire Commons’ Shopping Center, which is anchored by a Publix grocery store. The subject was built in 1991 yet had later construction during 2013. The subject’s address is 7301 Radio Road in Naples. This location wraps around the NW quadrant of Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard. The adjusted building area is 110,146 SF situated upon a site of 562,359 SF (i.e. 12.91 acres). The PET reports the subject’s occupancy at 97.6%, which is excellent. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the past 9 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [2 petitions combined] of $13,000,575, or $118.03/SF of enclosed building area (or $23.12/SF of the subject’s land area. The subject’s just value increased 1.5% (i.e. $197,132) from the combined 2019 just value of the subject. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail sales data, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis for the 4th Qtr. 2019, RERC 4th Qtr. 2019 South Investment Criteria, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20 X 562,359 SF = $11,250,000, plus $1,860,000 of impact fees for a total of $13,110,000 (which is 100.8% of the total assessment). In other words, (before COS) the PAO suggests the land value + impact fees support the combined just value being contested by the PET. The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Four (6, 9, 10, & 11) of the 11 were purchased for auto dealerships, which like busy traffic arteries just like shopping centers like to be visible to drive-by traffic. The car dealership sites of reasonably similar site size (#8, #9, #10, & #11) sold for $39.21, $17.02, $5.94, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $20/SF appears supported by those sales, given the mean land sales price is $10.33/SF (based upon all 11 sales that date back to 2014). The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $21,260,000 (before considering COS) to easily support the subject’s 2020-00280 Page 2 of 5 assessment. The PAO fails to add the costs to achieve stabilized occupancy; thus, the PAO’s Cost Approach could have easily been $1M greater had that cost been considered. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 16 leased fee improved retail shopping center sales that closed during 2017, 2018 & 2019 in Lee, Collier, & Charlotte counties. Ten (10) of the sales had Publix anchors (like the subject). Three (3) of the sales lack anchors. The mean sales price is $211/SF, with a median of $192/SF. The PAO gives greater weight to sales #7 ($180/SF), #10 ($271/SF), and #12 ($248/SF) and concludes $210/SF for the subject. Thus, $210/SF X 110,146 SF = $23,131,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. Sale #7 is a Publix-anchored center known as “Naples Lakes”. It sold in mid-2019 for $180/SF & the PAO indicates that is an inferior market area compared to the subject’s location. However, even if that price of $180/SF were applied to the subject, it would result in a figure of $18,826,000 (before COS), which easily would support the assessment of $13,000,575. In the Income Approach, the PAO estimates 3 different rent levels for the different tenant categories, as is common done with shopping center properties. Anchor space of 65,467 SF is projected at $12/SF gross, junior anchor space of 17,195 SF is projected at $17/SF gross, and in-line space of 27,484 SF is projected at $39/SF gross. The PAO assumes a total rentable area of 110,146 SF, which is 84 SF more than used by the PET, which will be discussed later. V&C is estimated at 10%, expenses [without taxes] at 30% of EGI ($5.27/SF), and a loaded OAR of 7.2% [6.0% + 1.2%] applied to the NOI resulting in a value indication of $18,111,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 129 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $10,691,000 for the combined value of the 2 petitions, which is a request for a $2,309,575 decrease. The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown (of 3 folios), value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s 2 Trim notices, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, my final ruling from the subject’s 2019 VAB appeal, rosters of recent leases executed for the subject, rosters of major retail anchors in Florida, roster of junior/sub-anchor contract rents in FL, numerous local rents (Loopnet & CoStar), roster fo vacant anchor rents in Florida (many from inferior markets), market support of investment rates from various sources (Marcus & Millichap, RERC, Realty Rates, Integra, PwC, et. al.), cap rate extraction analysis (from Collier, Lee &Manatee Counties, as well as other counties in Florida), retail articles (various topics), roster of comparable sales, back-up data to the improved sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notices for these petitions. (Note: The PET does not include a rent roll, even though his Summary of Evidence sheet indicates it is included.) The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon the same 3 categories 2020-00280 Page 3 of 5 of tenant spaces at the subject. The blended rate is for the revenue is $16.95/SF (gross), V&C is projected at 7.8%, expenses of $5.75/SF are deducted resulting in NOI of $1,087,320. The PET applies a loaded OAR of 8.645% to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of $12,557,810 (before COS consideration). After 15% COS, the PET’s Income Approach indicator is $18,691,139. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 5 improved sales. There are 2 sales from Collier County. Sale #1 was the Sears at Coastland Mall that was demolished. That transaction is not a good sale, it was more of a loan transaction. It is not relevant & disregarded in my recalculated average of the PET’s indicators, which is now revised to be $100.18/SF. Most of the other sales are from inferior locations in Lee & Manatee counties, and sales #2 & #5 are less than half the subject in size. Using the revised average indicator, the corrected PET Sales Comparison Approach indication is $11.02M (before COS). I give little weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach, as many (or perhaps all) lack grocery anchors. At the hearing, I accepted a ‘side-by-side’ comparison from the PET. It was simply a convenient summary of their respective Income Approach inputs and not ‘new evidence’. Overall, the PET’S large package of evidence is admissible, relevant & mostly credible (with the exception of PET’s improved sale #1.) RULING: The PET reports the subject’s occupancy at 97.6%, which is excellent & one of the factors that influences the cap rate selection. The PET uses a net rentable area that is 84 SF less than the PAO’s NRA of 110,146 SF. I tested the PAO’s Income Approach using the same size mix of the 3 categories so that the PAO’s total NRA matches the PET’s NRA. In addition, I increased the PAO’s ‘market’ portion of the cap rate from 6% to 7%, then used the PET’s more accurate millage rate that is specific to this property. The net result is that the contested just value is still supported by $1.1M even after COS is considered. As a test of reasonableness to the PAO’s Cost Approach, I tested the PAO’s analysis by cutting the land value rate in half from $20 to $10/SF. Once again, the contested just value is supported and this time by more than $3.8M. The PAO’s improved sales were also tested (earlier in this ruling) at a lower level per SF by the sale that is physically in closest proximity to the subject & it also supported the combined just value. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. This ruling applies to all 2 petitions (folios) that make up this ‘subject’ property, as it is all one economic unit under the same ownership. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00280: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the 2020-00280 Page 4 of 5 admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00280 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00281 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00281: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, and Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 280 & 281 were heard together as one operating property known as ‘Berkshire Commons’ Shopping Center, which is anchored by a Publix grocery store. The subject was built in 1991 yet had later construction during 2013. The subject’s address is 7301 Radio Road in Naples. This location wraps around the NW quadrant of Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard. The adjusted building area is 110,146 SF situated upon a site of 562,359 SF (i.e. 12.91 acres). The PET reports the subject’s occupancy at 97.6%, which is excellent. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the past 9 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [2 petitions combined] of $13,000,575, or $118.03/SF of enclosed building area (or $23.12/SF of the subject’s land area. The subject’s just value increased 1.5% (i.e. $197,132) from the combined 2019 just value of the subject. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail sales data, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis for the 4th Qtr. 2019, RERC 4th Qtr. 2019 South Investment Criteria, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $20 X 562,359 SF = $11,250,000, plus $1,860,000 of impact fees for a total of $13,110,000 (which is 100.8% of the total assessment). In other words, (before COS) the PAO suggests the land value + impact fees support the combined just value being contested by the PET. The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Four (6, 9, 10, & 11) of the 11 were purchased for auto dealerships, which like busy traffic arteries just like shopping centers like to be visible to drive-by traffic. The car dealership sites of reasonably similar site size (#8, #9, #10, & #11) sold for $39.21, $17.02, $5.94, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $20/SF appears supported by those sales, given the mean land sales price is $10.33/SF (based upon all 11 sales that date back to 2014). The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $21,260,000 (before considering COS) to easily support the subject’s 2020-00281 Page 2 of 5 assessment. The PAO fails to add the costs to achieve stabilized occupancy; thus, the PAO’s Cost Approach could have easily been $1M greater had that cost been considered. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 16 leased fee improved retail shopping center sales that closed during 2017, 2018 & 2019 in Lee, Collier, & Charlotte counties. Ten (10) of the sales had Publix anchors (like the subject). Three (3) of the sales lack anchors. The mean sales price is $211/SF, with a median of $192/SF. The PAO gives greater weight to sales #7 ($180/SF), #10 ($271/SF), and #12 ($248/SF) and concludes $210/SF for the subject. Thus, $210/SF X 110,146 SF = $23,131,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. Sale #7 is a Publix-anchored center known as “Naples Lakes”. It sold in mid-2019 for $180/SF & the PAO indicates that is an inferior market area compared to the subject’s location. However, even if that price of $180/SF were applied to the subject, it would result in a figure of $18,826,000 (before COS), which easily would support the assessment of $13,000,575. In the Income Approach, the PAO estimates 3 different rent levels for the different tenant categories, as is common done with shopping center properties. Anchor space of 65,467 SF is projected at $12/SF gross, junior anchor space of 17,195 SF is projected at $17/SF gross, and in-line space of 27,484 SF is projected at $39/SF gross. The PAO assumes a total rentable area of 110,146 SF, which is 84 SF more than used by the PET, which will be discussed later. V&C is estimated at 10%, expenses [without taxes] at 30% of EGI ($5.27/SF), and a loaded OAR of 7.2% [6.0% + 1.2%] applied to the NOI resulting in a value indication of $18,111,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 129 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $10,691,000 for the combined value of the 2 petitions, which is a request for a $2,309,575 decrease. The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown (of 3 folios), value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s 2 Trim notices, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, my final ruling from the subject’s 2019 VAB appeal, rosters of recent leases executed for the subject, rosters of major retail anchors in Florida, roster of junior/sub-anchor contract rents in FL, numerous local rents (Loopnet & CoStar), roster fo vacant anchor rents in Florida (many from inferior markets), market support of investment rates from various sources (Marcus & Millichap, RERC, Realty Rates, Integra, PwC, et. al.), cap rate extraction analysis (from Collier, Lee &Manatee Counties, as well as other counties in Florida), retail articles (various topics), roster of comparable sales, back-up data to the improved sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notices for these petitions. (Note: The PET does not include a rent roll, even though his Summary of Evidence sheet indicates it is included.) The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon the same 3 categories 2020-00281 Page 3 of 5 of tenant spaces at the subject. The blended rate is for the revenue is $16.95/SF (gross), V&C is projected at 7.8%, expenses of $5.75/SF are deducted resulting in NOI of $1,087,320. The PET applies a loaded OAR of 8.645% to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of $12,557,810 (before COS consideration). After 15% COS, the PET’s Income Approach indicator is $18,691,139. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 5 improved sales. There are 2 sales from Collier County. Sale #1 was the Sears at Coastland Mall that was demolished. That transaction is not a good sale, it was more of a loan transaction. It is not relevant & disregarded in my recalculated average of the PET’s indicators, which is now revised to be $100.18/SF. Most of the other sales are from inferior locations in Lee & Manatee counties, and sales #2 & #5 are less than half the subject in size. Using the revised average indicator, the corrected PET Sales Comparison Approach indication is $11.02M (before COS). I give little weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach, as many (or perhaps all) lack grocery anchors. At the hearing, I accepted a ‘side-by-side’ comparison from the PET. It was simply a convenient summary of their respective Income Approach inputs and not ‘new evidence’. Overall, the PET’S large package of evidence is admissible, relevant & mostly credible (with the exception of PET’s improved sale #1.) RULING: The PET reports the subject’s occupancy at 97.6%, which is excellent & one of the factors that influences the cap rate selection. The PET uses a net rentable area that is 84 SF less than the PAO’s NRA of 110,146 SF. I tested the PAO’s Income Approach using the same size mix of the 3 categories so that the PAO’s total NRA matches the PET’s NRA. In addition, I increased the PAO’s ‘market’ portion of the cap rate from 6% to 7%, then used the PET’s more accurate millage rate that is specific to this property. The net result is that the contested just value is still supported by $1.1M even after COS is considered. As a test of reasonableness to the PAO’s Cost Approach, I tested the PAO’s analysis by cutting the land value rate in half from $20 to $10/SF. Once again, the contested just value is supported and this time by more than $3.8M. The PAO’s improved sales were also tested (earlier in this ruling) at a lower level per SF by the sale that is physically in closest proximity to the subject & it also supported the combined just value. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. This ruling applies to all 2 petitions (folios) that make up this ‘subject’ property, as it is all one economic unit under the same ownership. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00281: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the 2020-00281 Page 4 of 5 admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00281 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00282 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00282: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, and Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 282, 283, & 284 were heard together as one operating property known as ‘Naples Walk’ Shopping Center, which is anchored by a Publix grocery store. I heard this same property’s 2019 VAB petition, as will be referenced later in my ruling. The subject was built in 1999, yet had later construction during 2000, & 2006. The subject’s address is 2460, 2464, & 2500 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Naples. This location is at the Southeast quadrant of Airport Road North and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The adjusted building area is 127,533 SF situated upon a site of 999,448 SF (i.e. 22.92 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold since 2007. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [3 petitions combined] of $18,942,698, or $148.53/SF of enclosed building area (or $18.08/SF of the subject’s land area. The subject’s just value increased 4.9% from my reduced value for 2019 to the contested just value for 2020. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail sales data, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis for the 4th Qtr. 2019, RERC 4th Qtr. 2019 South Investment Criteria, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15 X 998,448 SF = $14,980,000, plus $2,154,000 of impact fees for a total of $17,134,000 (which is 90.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Four (6,9, 10, & 11) of the 11 were purchased for auto dealerships, which compete on busy traffic arteries for with the subject’s use. The car dealership sites sold for $30.38/SF, $17.02, $5.94, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $15/SF appears supported by those sales, yet perhaps aggressive. It is noted the subject is almost 23 acres in size, while the largest sales presented have 52.249 acres ($8.88/SF) & 11.462 acres ($17.02/SF). The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $28,125,000 (before considering COS) to support the 2020-00282 Page 2 of 5 subject’s assessment. The PAO’s land value + impact fees combine for a total of $17,134,000, which equates to 90.5% of the contested just value of $18,942,698. The PAO fails to add the costs to achieve stabilized occupancy; thus, the PAO’s Cost Approach could have easily been $1M greater had that cost been considered. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 16 leased fee improved retail shopping center sales that closed during 2017, 2018 & 2019 in Lee, Collier, & Charlotte counties. Ten (10) of the sales had Publix anchors (like the subject). Three (3) of the sales lack anchors. The mean sales price is $211/SF, with a median of $192/SF. The PAO gives greater weight to sales #7 ($180/SF), #10 ($271/SF), and #12 ($248/SF) and concludes $220/SF for the subject. Thus, $220/SF X 127,533 SF = $28,057,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. In the Income Approach, the PAO estimates 3 different rent levels for the 3 different tenant categories, as is common done with shopping center properties. Anchor space of 51,295 SF is projected at $12/SF gross, junior anchor space of 7,100 SF it projected at $20/SF gross, and in-line space of 69,138 SF is projected at $32/SF gross. The PAO assumes a total rentable area of 127,533 SF, which is 2,830 SF more than used by the PET, which will be discussed later. V&C is estimated at 10%, expenses [without taxes] at 30% of EGI ($6.29/SF), and a loaded OAR of 7.2% [6.0% + 1.2%] applied to the NOI resulting in a value indication of $25,897,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the land value + impact fees total $17.134M, which is enough to support 90.5% of the contested just value, even without considering the added value contribution of more than 127,000 SF of retail building improvements. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 174 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $18.05M for the combined value of the 3 petitions, which would be $10,000 less than the [reduced] 2019 just value the PET obtained via a 2019 VAB appeal. The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown (of 3 folios), value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s 3 Trim notices, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, my final ruling from the subject’s 2019 VAB appeal, subject’s rent roll, rosters of recent leases executed for the subject, rosters of major retail anchors in Florida, roster of junior/sub-anchor contract rents in FL, numerous local rents (Loopnet & CoStar), roster fo vacant anchor rents in Florida (many from inferior markets), market support of investment rates from various sources (Marcus & Millichap, RERC, Realty Rates, Integra, PwC, et. al.), cap rate extraction analysis (from Collier, Lee &Manatee Counties, as well as other counties in Florida), retail articles (various topics), roster of comparable sales, back-up data to the improved sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notices for these petitions. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon the same 3 categories of tenant spaces at the subject. The blended rate is for the revenue is $22.82/SF (gross), 2020-00282 Page 3 of 5 V&C is projected at 8.84%, expenses of $6.20/SF are deducted resulting in NOI of $1,821,588. The PET applies a loaded OAR of 8.581% to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of $21,228,547 (before COS consideration). After 15% COS, the PET’s Income Approach indicator is $18,044,265. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 13 improved sales. There are 5 sales from Collier County. Sale #1 is a single-user leased fee sale for the Hobby Lobby store and it is not comparable to a multi-tenant shopping center 2.5 times its size. Sale #2 (Strand Shopping Center) was a non-market transfer and not a good sale. Sale #3 (Shoppes at Audobon) was non-anchored. Sale #4 was the Sears at Coastland Mall that was demolished. That transaction is also not a good sale, it was more of a loan transaction. Most of the other sales are from inferior locations in Lee & Manatee counties, and most are significantly smaller than the subject in size. I give little weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach. At the hearing, I accepted a ‘side-by-side’ comparison from the PET. It was simply a convenient summary of their respective Income Approach inputs and not ‘new evidence’. Overall, the PET’S large package of evidence is admissible, relevant & mostly credible (with the exception of some of the improved sales data, as noted). RULING: When comparing Income Approaches, it is noted that the PET & PAO are not dramatically apart (the PAO is approximately $49,500 higher). However, the PET uses the NRA obtained from the detailed rent roll provided by the owner; thus, the PET’s total NRA is 2,830 SF less than the PAO’s NRA of 127,533 SF. I changed the 3 PAO rental category sizes to match the PET’s same sizes, and the PAO’s Income Approach still supports the just value at a figure of $21,397,050 (after making the 15% COS deduction). All other PAO inputs (based upon rates or ratios) remained unchanged. Given the PAO’s NRA has been reduced slightly, the PET’s NOI is actually greater than the PAO’s by $9,143, which basically implies (for a property of this magnitude) their positions are essentially in agreement when it comes to NOI. The main item of difference becomes the cap rate selection. After reviewing the cap rate data supplied by both parties, even if I use a 7.00% market rate + the correct millage rate of 1.081 (from the PET’s evidence), I derive a loaded rate of 8.081%. When applied to the PAO’s NOI (reduced for the corrected amount of NRA), a value conclusion of $19,064,000 (rounded) results after the 15% COS deduction; thus, the contested just value is still supported. In addition, the PAO’s Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are also supportive of the contested just value, even after 15% COS deductions are applied to each of those approaches. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. This ruling applies to all 3 petitions (folios) that make up this ‘subject’ property, as it is all one economic unit under the same ownership. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00282: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For 2020-00282 Page 4 of 5 the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00282 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00283 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00283: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, and Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 282, 283, & 284 were heard together as one operating property known as ‘Naples Walk’ Shopping Center, which is anchored by a Publix grocery store. I heard this same property’s 2019 VAB petition, as will be referenced later in my ruling. The subject was built in 1999, yet had later construction during 2000, & 2006. The subject’s address is 2460, 2464, & 2500 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Naples. This location is at the Southeast quadrant of Airport Road North and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The adjusted building area is 127,533 SF situated upon a site of 999,448 SF (i.e. 22.92 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold since 2007. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [3 petitions combined] of $18,942,698, or $148.53/SF of enclosed building area (or $18.08/SF of the subject’s land area. The subject’s just value increased 4.9% from my reduced value for 2019 to the contested just value for 2020. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail sales data, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis for the 4th Qtr. 2019, RERC 4th Qtr. 2019 South Investment Criteria, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15 X 998,448 SF = $14,980,000, plus $2,154,000 of impact fees for a total of $17,134,000 (which is 90.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Four (6,9, 10, & 11) of the 11 were purchased for auto dealerships, which compete on busy traffic arteries for with the subject’s use. The car dealership sites sold for $30.38/SF, $17.02, $5.94, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $15/SF appears supported by those sales, yet perhaps aggressive. It is noted the subject is almost 23 acres in size, while the largest sales presented have 52.249 acres ($8.88/SF) & 11.462 acres ($17.02/SF). The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $28,125,000 (before considering COS) to support the 2020-00283 Page 2 of 5 subject’s assessment. The PAO’s land value + impact fees combine for a total of $17,134,000, which equates to 90.5% of the contested just value of $18,942,698. The PAO fails to add the costs to achieve stabilized occupancy; thus, the PAO’s Cost Approach could have easily been $1M greater had that cost been considered. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 16 leased fee improved retail shopping center sales that closed during 2017, 2018 & 2019 in Lee, Collier, & Charlotte counties. Ten (10) of the sales had Publix anchors (like the subject). Three (3) of the sales lack anchors. The mean sales price is $211/SF, with a median of $192/SF. The PAO gives greater weight to sales #7 ($180/SF), #10 ($271/SF), and #12 ($248/SF) and concludes $220/SF for the subject. Thus, $220/SF X 127,533 SF = $28,057,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. In the Income Approach, the PAO estimates 3 different rent levels for the 3 different tenant categories, as is common done with shopping center properties. Anchor space of 51,295 SF is projected at $12/SF gross, junior anchor space of 7,100 SF it projected at $20/SF gross, and in-line space of 69,138 SF is projected at $32/SF gross. The PAO assumes a total rentable area of 127,533 SF, which is 2,830 SF more than used by the PET, which will be discussed later. V&C is estimated at 10%, expenses [without taxes] at 30% of EGI ($6.29/SF), and a loaded OAR of 7.2% [6.0% + 1.2%] applied to the NOI resulting in a value indication of $25,897,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the land value + impact fees total $17.134M, which is enough to support 90.5% of the contested just value, even without considering the added value contribution of more than 127,000 SF of retail building improvements. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 174 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $18.05M for the combined value of the 3 petitions, which would be $10,000 less than the [reduced] 2019 just value the PET obtained via a 2019 VAB appeal. The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown (of 3 folios), value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s 3 Trim notices, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, my final ruling from the subject’s 2019 VAB appeal, subject’s rent roll, rosters of recent leases executed for the subject, rosters of major retail anchors in Florida, roster of junior/sub-anchor contract rents in FL, numerous local rents (Loopnet & CoStar), roster fo vacant anchor rents in Florida (many from inferior markets), market support of investment rates from various sources (Marcus & Millichap, RERC, Realty Rates, Integra, PwC, et. al.), cap rate extraction analysis (from Collier, Lee &Manatee Counties, as well as other counties in Florida), retail articles (various topics), roster of comparable sales, back-up data to the improved sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notices for these petitions. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon the same 3 categories of tenant spaces at the subject. The blended rate is for the revenue is $22.82/SF (gross), 2020-00283 Page 3 of 5 V&C is projected at 8.84%, expenses of $6.20/SF are deducted resulting in NOI of $1,821,588. The PET applies a loaded OAR of 8.581% to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of $21,228,547 (before COS consideration). After 15% COS, the PET’s Income Approach indicator is $18,044,265. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 13 improved sales. There are 5 sales from Collier County. Sale #1 is a single-user leased fee sale for the Hobby Lobby store and it is not comparable to a multi-tenant shopping center 2.5 times its size. Sale #2 (Strand Shopping Center) was a non-market transfer and not a good sale. Sale #3 (Shoppes at Audobon) was non-anchored. Sale #4 was the Sears at Coastland Mall that was demolished. That transaction is also not a good sale, it was more of a loan transaction. Most of the other sales are from inferior locations in Lee & Manatee counties, and most are significantly smaller than the subject in size. I give little weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach. At the hearing, I accepted a ‘side-by-side’ comparison from the PET. It was simply a convenient summary of their respective Income Approach inputs and not ‘new evidence’. Overall, the PET’S large package of evidence is admissible, relevant & mostly credible (with the exception of some of the improved sales data, as noted). RULING: When comparing Income Approaches, it is noted that the PET & PAO are not dramatically apart (the PAO is approximately $49,500 higher). However, the PET uses the NRA obtained from the detailed rent roll provided by the owner; thus, the PET’s total NRA is 2,830 SF less than the PAO’s NRA of 127,533 SF. I changed the 3 PAO rental category sizes to match the PET’s same sizes, and the PAO’s Income Approach still supports the just value at a figure of $21,397,050 (after making the 15% COS deduction). All other PAO inputs (based upon rates or ratios) remained unchanged. Given the PAO’s NRA has been reduced slightly, the PET’s NOI is actually greater than the PAO’s by $9,143, which basically implies (for a property of this magnitude) their positions are essentially in agreement when it comes to NOI. The main item of difference becomes the cap rate selection. After reviewing the cap rate data supplied by both parties, even if I use a 7.00% market rate + the correct millage rate of 1.081 (from the PET’s evidence), I derive a loaded rate of 8.081%. When applied to the PAO’s NOI (reduced for the corrected amount of NRA), a value conclusion of $19,064,000 (rounded) results after the 15% COS deduction; thus, the contested just value is still supported. In addition, the PAO’s Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are also supportive of the contested just value, even after 15% COS deductions are applied to each of those approaches. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. This ruling applies to all 3 petitions (folios) that make up this ‘subject’ property, as it is all one economic unit under the same ownership. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00283: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the 2020-00283 Page 4 of 5 admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00283 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00284 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00284: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina, and Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner (Property Tax Alliance Group) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Vincent Burnett. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: Petitions 282, 283, & 284 were heard together as one operating property known as ‘Naples Walk’ Shopping Center, which is anchored by a Publix grocery store. I heard this same property’s 2019 VAB petition, as will be referenced later in my ruling. The subject was built in 1999, yet had later construction during 2000, & 2006. The subject’s address is 2460, 2464, & 2500 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Naples. This location is at the Southeast quadrant of Airport Road North and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The adjusted building area is 127,533 SF situated upon a site of 999,448 SF (i.e. 22.92 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold since 2007. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s combined assessment [3 petitions combined] of $18,942,698, or $148.53/SF of enclosed building area (or $18.08/SF of the subject’s land area. The subject’s just value increased 4.9% from my reduced value for 2019 to the contested just value for 2020. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statutes and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, a summary of salient facts and conclusions of the subject, subject aerial photograph, subject location map, subject zoning map, subject’s tax roll sketch, Land Sales Comparable Map, Land Sales Summary Grid, Cost Approach summary, Marshall and Swift Valuation Summary Report (for the Cost Approach), Comparable Sales Location Map, Sales Comparison Analysis Grid, Sales Comparison Approach conclusion, Income Capitalization Approach-value estimate, Income Approach conclusion, Value Indications-Reconciliation, subject’s Warranty Deed, ground photographs of the subject, ground photographs of the comparable sales, income supportive market data, CoStar retail sales data, CoStar retail lease comps, PwC cap rate analysis for the 4th Qtr. 2019, RERC 4th Qtr. 2019 South Investment Criteria, and impact fee calculations. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15 X 998,448 SF = $14,980,000, plus $2,154,000 of impact fees for a total of $17,134,000 (which is 90.5% of the total assessment). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. Four (6,9, 10, & 11) of the 11 were purchased for auto dealerships, which compete on busy traffic arteries for with the subject’s use. The car dealership sites sold for $30.38/SF, $17.02, $5.94, & $26.49, respectively. The PAO’s land value of $15/SF appears supported by those sales, yet perhaps aggressive. It is noted the subject is almost 23 acres in size, while the largest sales presented have 52.249 acres ($8.88/SF) & 11.462 acres ($17.02/SF). The PAO does provide back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $28,125,000 (before considering COS) to support the 2020-00284 Page 2 of 5 subject’s assessment. The PAO’s land value + impact fees combine for a total of $17,134,000, which equates to 90.5% of the contested just value of $18,942,698. The PAO fails to add the costs to achieve stabilized occupancy; thus, the PAO’s Cost Approach could have easily been $1M greater had that cost been considered. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 16 leased fee improved retail shopping center sales that closed during 2017, 2018 & 2019 in Lee, Collier, & Charlotte counties. Ten (10) of the sales had Publix anchors (like the subject). Three (3) of the sales lack anchors. The mean sales price is $211/SF, with a median of $192/SF. The PAO gives greater weight to sales #7 ($180/SF), #10 ($271/SF), and #12 ($248/SF) and concludes $220/SF for the subject. Thus, $220/SF X 127,533 SF = $28,057,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach does appear reasonable by the sales evidence presented. In the Income Approach, the PAO estimates 3 different rent levels for the 3 different tenant categories, as is common done with shopping center properties. Anchor space of 51,295 SF is projected at $12/SF gross, junior anchor space of 7,100 SF it projected at $20/SF gross, and in-line space of 69,138 SF is projected at $32/SF gross. The PAO assumes a total rentable area of 127,533 SF, which is 2,830 SF more than used by the PET, which will be discussed later. V&C is estimated at 10%, expenses [without taxes] at 30% of EGI ($6.29/SF), and a loaded OAR of 7.2% [6.0% + 1.2%] applied to the NOI resulting in a value indication of $25,897,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing based upon the data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the land value + impact fees total $17.134M, which is enough to support 90.5% of the contested just value, even without considering the added value contribution of more than 127,000 SF of retail building improvements. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 174 pages of data and included the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. The PET seeks a value reduction to $18.05M for the combined value of the 3 petitions, which would be $10,000 less than the [reduced] 2019 just value the PET obtained via a 2019 VAB appeal. The PET provides a cover sheet, Summary of Evidence Submission, subject’s assessment breakdown (of 3 folios), value summary of PET’s 3 approaches, subject’s tax roll summary sheets, subject’s 3 Trim notices, subject’s aerial photographs, Form DR-493, Income Approach Analysis, market lease comparables, my final ruling from the subject’s 2019 VAB appeal, subject’s rent roll, rosters of recent leases executed for the subject, rosters of major retail anchors in Florida, roster of junior/sub-anchor contract rents in FL, numerous local rents (Loopnet & CoStar), roster fo vacant anchor rents in Florida (many from inferior markets), market support of investment rates from various sources (Marcus & Millichap, RERC, Realty Rates, Integra, PwC, et. al.), cap rate extraction analysis (from Collier, Lee &Manatee Counties, as well as other counties in Florida), retail articles (various topics), roster of comparable sales, back-up data to the improved sales, cost of sale addendum, and hearing notices for these petitions. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon the same 3 categories of tenant spaces at the subject. The blended rate is for the revenue is $22.82/SF (gross), 2020-00284 Page 3 of 5 V&C is projected at 8.84%, expenses of $6.20/SF are deducted resulting in NOI of $1,821,588. The PET applies a loaded OAR of 8.581% to the NOI, resulting in a value indicator of $21,228,547 (before COS consideration). After 15% COS, the PET’s Income Approach indicator is $18,044,265. The PET includes a Comparable Sales Approach which consists of 13 improved sales. There are 5 sales from Collier County. Sale #1 is a single-user leased fee sale for the Hobby Lobby store and it is not comparable to a multi-tenant shopping center 2.5 times its size. Sale #2 (Strand Shopping Center) was a non-market transfer and not a good sale. Sale #3 (Shoppes at Audobon) was non-anchored. Sale #4 was the Sears at Coastland Mall that was demolished. That transaction is also not a good sale, it was more of a loan transaction. Most of the other sales are from inferior locations in Lee & Manatee counties, and most are significantly smaller than the subject in size. I give little weight to the PET’s Sales Comparison Approach. At the hearing, I accepted a ‘side-by-side’ comparison from the PET. It was simply a convenient summary of their respective Income Approach inputs and not ‘new evidence’. Overall, the PET’S large package of evidence is admissible, relevant & mostly credible (with the exception of some of the improved sales data, as noted). RULING: When comparing Income Approaches, it is noted that the PET & PAO are not dramatically apart (the PAO is approximately $49,500 higher). However, the PET uses the NRA obtained from the detailed rent roll provided by the owner; thus, the PET’s total NRA is 2,830 SF less than the PAO’s NRA of 127,533 SF. I changed the 3 PAO rental category sizes to match the PET’s same sizes, and the PAO’s Income Approach still supports the just value at a figure of $21,397,050 (after making the 15% COS deduction). All other PAO inputs (based upon rates or ratios) remained unchanged. Given the PAO’s NRA has been reduced slightly, the PET’s NOI is actually greater than the PAO’s by $9,143, which basically implies (for a property of this magnitude) their positions are essentially in agreement when it comes to NOI. The main item of difference becomes the cap rate selection. After reviewing the cap rate data supplied by both parties, even if I use a 7.00% market rate + the correct millage rate of 1.081 (from the PET’s evidence), I derive a loaded rate of 8.081%. When applied to the PAO’s NOI (reduced for the corrected amount of NRA), a value conclusion of $19,064,000 (rounded) results after the 15% COS deduction; thus, the contested just value is still supported. In addition, the PAO’s Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are also supportive of the contested just value, even after 15% COS deductions are applied to each of those approaches. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. This ruling applies to all 3 petitions (folios) that make up this ‘subject’ property, as it is all one economic unit under the same ownership. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00284: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For 2020-00284 Page 4 of 5 the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00284 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00285 00168880007 TIM HART 8979 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34108 20,126,884.00 20,126,884.00 20,126,884.00 20,126,884.00 20,126,884.00 20,126,884.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,126,884.00 20,126,884.00 20,126,884.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 02/06/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Petiton #2020-285 Pavillion Shopping Center Reconstruction of Petitioner's Income Approach using the same inputs, yet removing the Flemming's Restaurant Outparcel from the figures below: Area SF Gross Rent/SF Vacancy Theater 31,118 $10.25 5.0% $303,012 LA FITNESS 50,795 $9.00 5.0% $434,297 salon 10,698 $20.00 10.0% $192,564 Vacant space 5,788 $24.00 10.0% $125,021 FLEMMINGS SEPARATE PETITION SEPARATE PETITION #286 inca 7,336 $24.00 10.0% $158,458 keller williams 6,400 $24.00 10.0% $138,240 locals 49,110 $38.00 10.0% $1,679,562 Total NRA> 161,245 ----------------------- EGI: $18.80 $3,031,154 $/SF Expenses ($5.95) ($959,408) Reserves ($0.25) ($40,311.25) ========================= NOI $12.60 $2,031,435 mkt rate> 7.500% Millage> 1.081% OAR 8.581% >>>>>>>>>>>>Divided by>8.581% $ rentable SF Value $146.82 $23,673,637 Less Lease-up ($391,049) $0 Real property $23,282,588 Less COS 15%($3,492,388) Real prop-COS >$19,790,200 CONTESTED JUST VALUE BEING PETITIONED>>$20,126,884 CONTESTED JUST VALUE BEING PETITIONED>> $20,126,884 PET's Income- COS (reconstructed)>>>> ($19,790,200) Difference: $336,684 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00286 00176685207 TIM HART 8985 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34108 2,324,432.00 2,324,432.00 2,324,432.00 2,085,042.00 2,085,042.00 2,085,042.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,085,042.00 2,085,042.00 2,085,042.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 02/06/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00296 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00296 12782360001 MARTA SUAREZ R/L TRUST 1927 CRAYTON RD NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 1,085,427.00 1,085,427.00 1,085,427.00 980,375.00 980,375.00 980,375.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 980,375.00 980,375.00 980,375.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/20/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00296: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding and Mr. Chis DelPo. The petitioner (PET) was Mr. Carl Suarez and Ms. Susan Suarez, owner of the property. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,085,427. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. No evidence was admitted into record. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $1,085,427. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence in a timely manner to the VAB and PET did not exchange evidence with PAO, when requested. PET did have evidence to be presented at the hearing, however PAO indicated that PET had not submitted their evidence when requested prior to the hearing. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00296: The Petitioner was present at the hearing, but the Petitioner had not previously submitted 2020-00296 Page 2 of 3 their evidence. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00296 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00306 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00306 56807480000 1206 ANTLER LTD 1882 SAN MARCO RD MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 501,264.00 501,264.00 501,264.00 478,543.00 478,543.00 478,543.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 478,543.00 478,543.00 478,543.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00306: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (1206 Antler, Ltd.) was represented by Mr. Randy McKechnie. Mr. McKechnie was not at the hearing & was not on the telephone; however, his evidence was given consideration. It is worthy to note that there two petitions being heard together (TP-306 & 310). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as the “Island Garden Center of Marco”. The subject was built in the 1977-1996 time frame. The subject’s addresses are 1882 & 1874 San Marco Road on Marco Island. The adjusted building area is 6,036 SF situated upon a site of 38,724 SF (i.e. 0.889 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2015 for $900,000. The 2020 assessment of $925,103 equates to 102.8% of the prior sales price, but there has been appreciation over the subsequent 5 years leading up to the current assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted 2 of the 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $925,103, or $153/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO did provide a table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts, subject aerials, tax roll sketch, subject photographs, locations maps, zoning map, regional/neighborhood analysis, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back- up data for land sales, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), improved sales grid/map, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/back-up data for improved sales, support for impact fees, & the subject’s building card information. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $30/SF ($1,162,000) , plus $76,726 of impact fees for a total of $1,238,2763. The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators all located on Marco Island. The land value appears very well supported by those sales. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, indirect costs, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $1,427,919 to support the subject’s assessment. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 4 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $149.11-$252/SF. The low end of that range 2020-00306 Page 2 of 4 was the subject’s prior sale back in 2015. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 6,036 SF = $1,207,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Due to the nature of the property & circumstances, the PAO did not attempt an Income Approach. However, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 134% of the PAO’s total assessment. This leaves ample COS consideration. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 6 pages into evidence for this hearing. The first page is an email from the PET indicating the inability to attend the hearing, yet the desire to have the submitted evidence considered. The 2nd page is the hearing notice, while the 3rd page is the letter of authorization. The 4th page consists of an aerial photo and a ground-level photo. Page 5 is a pro-forma Income Approach, while Page 6 is a copy of the certified mail envelope sending The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.95/SF NNN, 15% vacancy, $4,080 expenses resulting in NOI of $36,720/SF reserves. The PET applies an unloaded cap rate of 8.5%. The PET’s Income Approach concludes a value of $432,000 (before any COS deduction), which is less than half of the subject’s prior sales price 5 years ago. The PET does not provide any support for any of his inputs. Collectively, the PET’s inputs do not appear reasonable for the property type & location on Marco Island. RULING: The PET’s presentation with just an Income Approach is extremely weak & all inputs are unsupported. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s presents 3 approaches to value. Most importantly, the PAO provides well-supported land value + impact fees. The land value estimate is based upon 9 sales all located on Marco Island. Because of the nature of the property with relatively small buildings in place. I give strong weight to the PAO’s Cost Approach estimate of $1,427,010. The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach is given little weight except for the fact that the subject previously sold for $900,000 in November 2015. With modest compound appreciation over 4+ years, an assessment of $925,103 does not seem that unreasonable. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00306: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment 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 2020-00306 Page 3 of 4 evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00306 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00308 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00308 68480000222 PRICE AND 41 LLC 12450 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 3,386,967.00 3,386,967.00 3,386,967.00 3,386,967.00 3,386,967.00 3,386,967.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,386,967.00 3,386,967.00 3,386,967.00 (See Attached) The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/14/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00308: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A),F.A.C) SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $3,386,967. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2020-00308 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00310 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00310 56807520009 1206 ANTLER LTD 1874 SAN MARCO RD MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 423,839.00 423,839.00 423,839.00 391,464.00 391,464.00 391,464.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 391,464.00 391,464.00 391,464.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00310: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (1206 Antler, Ltd.) was represented by Mr. Randy McKechnie. Mr. McKechnie was not at the hearing & was not on the telephone; however, his evidence was given consideration. It is worthy to note that there two petitions being heard together (TP-306 & 310). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as the “Island Garden Center of Marco”. The subject was built in the 1977-1996 time frame. The subject’s addresses are 1882 & 1874 San Marco Road on Marco Island. The adjusted building area is 6,036 SF situated upon a site of 38,724 SF (i.e. 0.889 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2015 for $900,000. The 2020 assessment of $925,103 equates to 102.8% of the prior sales price, but there has been appreciation over the subsequent 5 years leading up to the current assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted 2 of the 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $925,103, or $153/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO did provide a table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts, subject aerials, tax roll sketch, subject photographs, locations maps, zoning map, regional/neighborhood analysis, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back- up data for land sales, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), improved sales grid/map, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/back-up data for improved sales, support for impact fees, & the subject’s building card information. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO estimated land value at $30/SF ($1,162,000) , plus $76,726 of impact fees for a total of $1,238,2763. The land value estimate was based upon the 9 commercial land sale indicators all located on Marco Island. The land value appears very well supported by those sales. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, indirect costs, and entrepreneurial profit, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $1,427,919 to support the subject’s assessment. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, the PAO provides a roster of 4 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $149.11-$252/SF. The low end of that range 2020-00310 Page 2 of 4 was the subject’s prior sale back in 2015. The PAO concludes $200/SF X 6,036 SF = $1,207,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Due to the nature of the property & circumstances, the PAO did not attempt an Income Approach. However, the PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach. In fact, the well supported land value + impact fees equal 134% of the PAO’s total assessment. This leaves ample COS consideration. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 6 pages into evidence for this hearing. The first page is an email from the PET indicating the inability to attend the hearing, yet the desire to have the submitted evidence considered. The 2nd page is the hearing notice, while the 3rd page is the letter of authorization. The 4th page consists of an aerial photo and a ground-level photo. Page 5 is a pro-forma Income Approach, while Page 6 is a copy of the certified mail envelope sending The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $7.95/SF NNN, 15% vacancy, $4,080 expenses resulting in NOI of $36,720/SF reserves. The PET applies an unloaded cap rate of 8.5%. The PET’s Income Approach concludes a value of $432,000 (before any COS deduction), which is less than half of the subject’s prior sales price 5 years ago. The PET does not provide any support for any of his inputs. Collectively, the PET’s inputs do not appear reasonable for the property type & location on Marco Island. RULING: The PET’s presentation with just an Income Approach is extremely weak & all inputs are unsupported. The PET’s failure to support land value via market-oriented sources means the H&BU is not adequately addressed. The PAO’s presents 3 approaches to value. Most importantly, the PAO provides well-supported land value + impact fees. The land value estimate is based upon 9 sales all located on Marco Island. Because of the nature of the property with relatively small buildings in place. I give strong weight to the PAO’s Cost Approach estimate of $1,427,010. The PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach is given little weight except for the fact that the subject previously sold for $900,000 in November 2015. With modest compound appreciation over 4+ years, an assessment of $925,103 does not seem that unreasonable. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00310: 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 2020-00310 Page 3 of 4 evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00310 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00312 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00312 52265000181 1206 ANTLER LIMITED PRTNRSHP 900 COLLIER CT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 328,240.00 328,240.00 328,240.00 328,240.00 328,240.00 328,240.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 328,240.00 328,240.00 328,240.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/21/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00312: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Donald Wegner and Ms. Carla Allegro. The Petitioner (PET) was not present, however submitted evidence and requested the evidence be reviewed in their absence. PAO were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $328,240. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a residential condominium. The unit is located on the second floor of a 5-story building with a total of 24 units, this is a waterfront building. Fourteen garage parking spaces, and seventeen boat slips are deeded separately; the subject does not have a parking space or a boat slip. The unit has an area of 1,158-sf. The property was built in 1990. The property is located in Islander Cove condominium at 900 Collier Court # 203, Marco Island FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00312 Page 2 of 6 PAO presented a report containing 27 pages. The report included photographs of the subject, scope of the appraisal, the evidence and witness list, trim notice for the property and warranty deed. PAO provided comparable sales in chart form, aerials and site map of the subject and comparable sales, photographs of subject building, site plan, unit layout in the building, floor plan for the subject, photos, floor plans of the comparable sales and a listing of a comparable unit. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 condominium sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from December 2017 to March 2020. PET included 2 sales in subject building that sold from August 2019 to March 2020; these two sales are 1,384-sf and sold from $403.00 to $424.00/sf. All the sales range in unit size from 1,384- sf to 1,502-sf. The buildings were built from 1976 to 1995. PAO made no adjustments. The sales range from $343.00 to $424.00/sf of unit area. PAO reconciled a just value at $283.45.00/sf of unit area or $328,240, well below any of the sales. PET’s evidence consisted of a 2-pages and included an aerial view and photograph of the subject; PET included an Income Pro Forma for the subject. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided an Income Proforma for the subject. PET did not provide any supporting evidence for the income, vacancy, expenses or cap rate. PET estimated the annual income at $24,000 or $2,000/month. PET deducted an estimated a vacancy of 15% or $3,600. The effective gross income (EGI) is $20,400. The operating expenses have been estimated at $2,040 and deducted from the EGI for a net operating income (NOI) of $18,360. PET capitalized the NOI of $18,360 at 8.5% for an estimated value of $216,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has 2020-00312 Page 3 of 6 sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. 2020-00312 Page 4 of 6 Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the rent at $2,000/month for a waterfront property on Marco Island is very low; the vacancy at 15% is very high for this market. The estimated value derived by PET is very low. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided recent, adequate comparable condominium sales in the neighborhood. PET’s analysis provides no support for the rents, vacancy and cap rate. PET’s value is understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00312: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of 2020-00312 Page 5 of 6 correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00312 Page 6 of 6 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00320 Page 1 of 1 Collier ✔ 2020-00320 80445100909 HENEGAR, SEBASTIAN & MIHAELA 1714 SAN BERNADINO WAY NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 233,190.00 233,190.00 233,190.00 233,190.00 233,190.00 233,190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 233,190.00 233,190.00 233,190.00 ✔ Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and did not indicate on their petition that they wished to have their evidence presented. No evidence was uploaded into Axia. No good cause request was pending. Pursuant to Rule 12D-9.021(6) and (8), Fla. Admin. Code, this recommendation for denial of the petition is being issued in order to preserve any rights petitioner may have to take legal action in the circuit court. ✔ Ellen Chadwell 11/24/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/01/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00323 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00323 74760160009 DENEEN L. MALY 3960 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 3,677,051.00 3,677,051.00 3,238,500.00 3,141,360.00 3,141,360.00 3,141,360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,141,360.00 3,141,360.00 3,141,360.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/27/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/27/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00323: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in person by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner was represented in person by Ms. Deneen Maly. All parties were present in the hearing room (not on the phone). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a multi-tenant retail property built by Sherwin Williams (the owner) with a 3-star (out of 5) rating by CoStar. The subject was built in 1983; thus, the subject is 37 years old. The subject’s address is 3960 Tamiami Trail North in Naples. The building area is 14,400 adjusted SF . The buildings are situated upon a site of 72,250 SF (1.658 acres). The land-to-building (LTB) ratio is 5.02, while the FAR is the inverse at 19.9%. The subject is located on the east side of Tamiami Trail. The subject has a common clubhouse and swimming pool. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold recently. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to support the subject’s assessment of $3,667,051, or $254.66/SF of adjusted building area, or $50.76/SF of land area. The 2020 contested just value increased $193,991, or 5.6% from 2019 to 2020. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, table of contents, evidence list, business card list of PAO officials, aerial photo(s), the deed for the prior sale of the subject, tax roll screens for the subject, various interior & exterior photographs/views, amenity pictures, building sketches, location map, various market & demographic statistics/graphs, land sales grid, land sales map, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, Income Approach, improved sales map [for the Collier sales], operating expense analysis, market-extracted cap rates (Collier & Lee County areas), rent comparables roster, roster of market-extracted cap rates, H&BU discussion, reconciliation, impact fee calculations, land sales aerials/details, improved sales grid, improved sales photos/details, subject’s Collier County tax roll summary, lease-up discount calculations, operating expense analysis, PwC Overall Cap Rate Analysis, & the RERC 4th Quarter 2019 South Region rate survey. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO estimates land value at $50/SF ($3.61M), plus $200k of impact fees for a total of $3.81m (which is 3.9% greater than the total just value). The land value estimate was based upon 8 land sale indicators in Naples (most of which are located along Tamiami Trail). The land sales closed between after 12/2017 and 1/2020. The PAO gives special attention to two “notable” older sales that took place during the prior real estate boom in the 2004/05 era. Both happen to be located on the east side of Tamiami Trail in close proximity to the subject & they sold for $53.91/SF & $46.07/SF, respectively. Given we are in a similar ‘boom’ period of values highly similar to the prior boom, I do give weight to these two sales. 2020-00323 Page 2 of 5 The PAO does provide aerial & back-up details related to those two (and all other) land sale in the back of their evidence package. The PAO added the building’s RCN, site improvements, indirect costs, entrepreneurial profit, and then deducted for depreciation. The resulting total Cost Approach estimate of $4,759,000 supports the contested just value. In fact, the land value + impact fees combined support the just value without even considering the contribution of the vertical building improvements. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 14 improved sales from early 2016 to February 2020 from (mostly) Collier County. [Note: 1 sale is in Lee County]. The average price/SF of building is $294, which helps to support the subject’s just value of $254.66/SF. The median sales price is $243/SF, but it should also be recognized that there was no time (i.e. appreciation) adjustment applied to any of the sales. If so, that median would rise much closer to the just value. It appears sale #1 closed in 2/2020 (from the write-up, but the sales grid indicates a 2019 closing. It is very possible that sale was under contract on the assessment date; thus, it is given consideration. The PAO concludes $300/SF X 14,400 SF = $4.2M via the Sales Comparison Approach (before any COS discount). After reviewing the photographs of the sales (and considering 4 appear to be single-user buildings), the PAO’s estimate via this approach appears a little high based upon the appearances of the most similar multi- tenant properties. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects GROSS rent at $25/SF, vacancy/ collection loss at 5%, expenses [without taxes] at 20% (i.e. $4.75/SF without taxes), and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.2% (6.00% + 1.2% millage) to NOI of $273,600 for a value indication of $3.8M, less $120,000 in lease-up costs. The PAO appears to make contradictions by using 5% V&C on pages 47 & 50, yet also states stabilized vacancy is 10% for his lease-up discount at the top of page 50. The top of page 50 is perhaps a typo, given his subsequent calculations in the middle of page 50 indicate 5%. The PAO concludes $3,680,000 via the Income Approach (before COS discount). The PAO reconciles the 3 approaches for a value of $4,150,000 (before deducting for COS). The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover page, summary of evidence, aerial photograph of the subject, CoStar summary of the subject (with photos), PAO’s building sketch, the subject’s tax roll summary from the PAO’s web site a pro- forma Income Approach, 2020 TRIM notice, lengthy CoStar rental analysis, Comparable Sales Approach with 8 sales (all from 2019 in Collier County), another set of 4 improved sales, 2 land sales, CoStar back-up sales data, other CoStar sales information for the local market, Avison Young 1st Quarter 2020 Cap Rate Report, RERC report (dated November 2019), a CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey, Integra Realty’s Retail Annual Report, & Collier County’s DR-493 for 2020. In the Income Approach, the PET’s pro-forma projects NNN rent at $20/SF, 5% V&C, 10% expenses, and then applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.5% to the NOI of $246,240, resulting in a value indication (before any COS deduction) of $3.283M. The PET then makes a lease-up deduction of $206,490 for a figure of $3,076,710. the PET then makes 2020-00323 Page 3 of 5 a 15% COS deduction resulting in a value indicator via the Income Approach of $2,615,204, or $181.61/SF. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PET presented 8 improved sales on page 49 of her evidence and another 4 improved sales on page 64 of her evidence. All 12 closed in 2019 & eleven are in Collier County. At lease 4 of the first 8 sales were portfolio sales. There does not appear to be a specific point estimate of value for this approach, but at least 7 of the sales appear to have closed in the $212-$258/SF price range. The PET presents two land sales with back-up data for sites that closed in 2019 for $30.38/SF and $24.53/SF. However, the PET did not prepare a Cost Approach. The PET provided rebuttal evidence (i.e. tax roll back-up data) related to 6 PAO land sales, as well as 10 of the PAO’s improved sales. The PET also questions some of the PAO’s sales as missing some important information. RULING: The bulk of evidence by both parties suggests that the PAO’s assessment is slightly aggressive. After considering a 15% COS deduction, the PAO’s Cost Income Approach Sales Comparison Approach and the PAO’s reconciled value (after COS) all fall below the contested just value. Only the PAO’s Cost Approach ($4,045,150 after 15% COS) exceeds the contested just value of $3,6676,051. Given the subject is already 37 years old and of a fairly simplistic rectangular design, it is not unreasonable to assume that the building may have very little remaining economic life. In other words, the vast majority of the income is ‘to the land’. Given the state of development, the PAO did have trouble finding recent land sales in close proximity to the subject; however, two older sales [I do consider because of their close proximity] from the prior real estate boom did offer support for the PAO’s concluded $50/SF of site area, or $3,610,000. Impact fees of $200,000 also ‘run with the land’; thus, they are considered and added for a total of $3,810,000. If applying a 15% COS deduction to that figure, a resulting value of $3,238,500 (i.e. $225/SF of building area) results. Coincidentally, that $225/SF figure provides a much better ‘fit’ to the bulk of the PAO’s improved sales, as well as 6 of the PET’s improved sales. In conclusion, I am not necessarily saying the building has no value even though it is 38 years old. However, it has a very simplistic and basic design and also has some vacant space [for some unknown reason] resulting in lease-up discounts applied by both the PAO & the PET. From the bulk of data provided, there appears to be value indicators from multiple directions indicating a value near $225/SF as more reflective of reasonableness, as that value ($3,328,500) also supports a more reasonable land value (with impact fees) for this location along North Tamiami Trail. The PET overcame the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be reduced to $3,328,500, which happens to also reflect a $234,560 reduction from the 2019 former assessment for this property. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00323: 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 2020-00323 Page 4 of 5 Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2020-00323 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00328 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00328 21961000351 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS, LTD 2505 PINE RIDGERD NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 8,923,211.00 8,923,211.00 8,923,211.00 8,122,932.00 8,122,932.00 8,122,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,122,932.00 8,122,932.00 8,122,932.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/21/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00328: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $8,923,211. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C-good retail building, known as Eldorado Furniture store. The building area is 43,964-sf. the land size is 168,141-sf or 3.86 acres. The building was built in 1996 with an effective age of 2015. The property sold in September 2016 for $10,350,000; the building was renovated at a cost of $2,525,828, as per the issued permit for a total of $12,875,828. The property is located at 2505 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00328 Page 2 of 8 PAO presented a report containing 97 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs and details of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, support for capitalization rates (cap rate), and the subject property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 9 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to March 2019. The land sales range in size from 27,007-sf to 339,768-sf; the unadjusted sales, ranges from $18.16/sf to $55.54/sf. The mean of all the sales is $33.46/ sf and the median is $26.49/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $30.00/sf x 168,141-sf or $5,044,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, with paving, is estimated at $7,290,208, impact fees at $733,428, and the land value is estimated at $5,044,230, for a total cost of $13,068,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 9 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from March 2016 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 25,594-sf to 126,880-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 56,955-sf to 1,017,562-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 12% to 45%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 26.1%. The buildings were built from 1996 to 2018. The sales range from $63.00 to $547.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $207.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $207.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $250.00/sf of building area including land or $10,991,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provided market extracted market rents in Collier and Lee counties of large properties. The building sizes range from 18,991-sf to 123,522-sf; the land size is 2.11 to 12.305 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The net rents range from $6.39 to $25.60/sf with a mean of $15.03/sf and a median of $12.86/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, that range in size from 21,000-sf to 62,000-sf with a mean of 36,467-sf and a median of 31,000-sf; the rents range from $9.00 to $32.00/sf with a mean of $13.92/sf and a median of $12.50/sf on a modified gross basis, 2020-00328 Page 3 of 8 (where the owner pays most of the expenses). PAO estimated a rent of $20.00/sf for a gross rent of $879,280. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida, from the real estate market survey CoStar, for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $43,964. The effective gross income is $835,316. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 6 single tenant retail store and the operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 25%, excluding real estate taxes, of effective gross income (EGI) or $208,829. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $626,487. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 9 sales of retail properties located in Collier and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.66% to 9.42% with a mean of 6.69% and a median of 6.60% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.39-$25.60/sf). PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of office buildings in Naples, and the cap rate for these properties ranges from 6.25% to 7.70%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 4.64% to 8.58% with an average of 6.63%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 7.11%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.50% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.70%. The NOI of $626,487.00 capitalized at 7.70% indicates a value of $8,136,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $8,923,211. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. 2020-00328 Page 4 of 8 Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; 2020-00328 Page 5 of 8 (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 23-pages which consisted of a cover letter, subject property record card, DR-493 form and comparable improved sales, and land sales with property record cards for each sale. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach only. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 6 improved sales located in Naples. The sales include industrial, retail, strip centers and commercial buildings. The improved sales sold from May 2017 to September 2019. The sales range in building size from 17,640-sf to 137,673-sf, with an indicated value range from $16.35 to $212.52/sf of building are including land. After applying the cost of sales of 15% the comparables range from $13.90 to $180.64/sf. PET did not provide an analysis of the sales. PET provided 2 listings of vacant land in Naples. The lots range from 51,836-sf to 330,184-sf . The asking price ranges from $15.14 to $26.04/sf. PET does not provide an analysis of these land sales. PET does not provide a value for the property. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET’s building sales are inferior in quality and location to the subject. One sale is located on Trade Center Way, mostly an industrial area, one sale is a strip center located east of the subject near Collier Boulevard. The subject is well located, in a good commercial area, at the corner of Pine Ridge and Airport Pulling Road. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s evidence was not considered comparable to the subject property in location and quality 2020-00328 Page 6 of 8 of improved sales. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00328: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. 2020-00328 Page 7 of 8 In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00328 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00329 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00329 22493000080 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS, LTD 15485 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34110✔ ✔ 5,533,150.00 5,533,150.00 5,533,150.00 5,533,150.00 5,533,150.00 5,533,150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,533,150.00 5,533,150.00 5,533,150.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/21/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00329: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was not present but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $5,533,150. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C-good retail building, known as Baer’s Furniture store. The building area is 63,032-sf; the land size is 182,954-sf or 4.20 acres. The building was built in 1999. The property is located at 15485 Tamiami Trail North, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 83 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, 2020-00329 Page 2 of 7 limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs and details of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, support for capitalization rates (cap rate), and the subject property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 8 land sale; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 70,567-sf to 406,850-sf; the unadjusted sales, ranges from $12.66/sf to $41.50/sf. The mean of all the sales is $24.73/sf and the median is $24.98/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $25.00/sf x 182,952-sf or $4,574,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, with paving, is estimated at $4,374,912, impact fees at $1,051,703, and the land value is estimated at $4,574,000 for a total cost of $10,001,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 8 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from July 2014 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 30,585-sf to 126,880-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 130,680-sf to 1,017,562-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 12% to 33%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 34.5%. The buildings were built from 1996 to 2016. The sales range from $63.00 to $235.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $164.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $188.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $140.00/sf of building area including land or $8,824,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provided market extracted market rents in Collier and Lee Counties of large properties. The building sizes range from 18,991-sf to 123,522-sf; the land size is 2.11 to 12.305 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 28%. The net rents range from $6.39 to $25.60/sf with a mean of $15.03/sf and a median of $12.86/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, that range in size from 21,000-sf to 62,000-sf with a mean of 36,467-sf and a median of 31,000-sf; the rents range from $9.00 to $32.00/sf with a mean of $13.92/sf and a median of $12.50/sf on a modified gross basis, (where the owner pays most of the expenses). 2020-00329 Page 3 of 7 PAO estimated a rent of $15.00/sf for a gross rent of $945,480. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $94,548. The effective gross income is $850,932. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 6 single tenant retail store and the operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $212,733. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $638,199. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 9 sales of retail properties located in Collier and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.66% to 9.42% with a mean of 6.69% and a median of 6.60% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.39-$25.60/sf). PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of office buildings in Naples, and the cap rate for these properties ranges from 6.25% to 7.70%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 4.64% to 8.58% with an average of 6.63%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 7.11%. PAO used a cap rate of 7.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.20%. The NOI of $638,199.00 capitalized at 8.20% indicates a value of $7,783,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $5,533,150. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. 2020-00329 Page 4 of 7 See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current 2020-00329 Page 5 of 7 capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 6-pages which consisted of a cover letter, subject property record card, DR-493 form, and the property record card of one comparable assessment of an improved property in close proximity to the subject. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET included the property record of the property located at 13450 Tamiami Trail North, this is a 7,414-sf building that is assessed at $1,160,150 or $156.48/sf. PET does not provide any analysis on this property. PET does not provide a value for the property. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET is comparing the assessed value of a much smaller property and does not provide any comparable data. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s evidence was not considered comparable to the subject property. PET is comparing the assessed value of a smaller property. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00329: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the 2020-00329 Page 6 of 7 assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00329 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00339 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00339 63944000527 DD REALTY LLC 2535 NORTHBROOKE PLAZDR NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 778,387.00 778,387.00 778,387.00 765,937.00 765,937.00 765,937.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 765,937.00 765,937.00 765,937.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/21/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00339: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was represented by agent, Larry Puyanic. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $778,387. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a Children’s Montessori School (originally a 3-unit office/ retail building). The building is one story and contains 5,288-sf; built in 2005. The land size is 20,038-sf. The property is located 2535 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 82 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market 2020-00339 Page 2 of 8 analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. The addenda contains the deed with legal description; impact fees; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales, and lease comparables, with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 8 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The majority of the land sales are located in close proximity to the subject, along or just off Immokalee Road. The land sales occurred from April 2017 to November 2019. The land sales range in size from 46,140-sf to 148,104-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $16.83 to $36.88/ sf. The mean of all the sales is $29.26/sf and the median is $31.69/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $25.00/sf or $501,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $579,233, impact fees are estimated at $33,260, and the land value is estimated at $501,000 for a total cost of $1,113,000 rounded. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 3 sales, two of which are on the same street as the subject and one on Davis Boulevard, south of the subject. The sales occurred from April 2015 (Davis Blvd) to May 2019. The sales range in building size from 3,745-sf (Davis Blvd) to 8,530-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 25,878-sf to 39,640-sf with a land to building ratio of 14.5% to 22%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 26.4%. The buildings were built from 1997 (Davis Blvd) to 2003. The sales range from $170.00 (Davis Blvd) to $227.72/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of 207.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $223.00/sf of building area including land. The sales on the same street as the subject are a Sherwin Williams Paint store with 6,148-sf and 28,750-sf of land; this property sold for $227.72/sf; this building has minimal finish. The other sale, on the same street as the subject, is a medical office building, with 8,530-sf on 39,640-sf of land; this building sold for $222.74/sf. The sale on Davis Boulevard, at a distance from the subject, is an older sale. This is a former office building, and at the time of sale, the building was used as a daycare; this is an older building with 3,745-sf on 25,878-sf of land; and sold for $170.89/sf. PAO placed most emphasis on the sales near the subject. 2020-00339 Page 3 of 8 PAO reconciled a value at $200.00/sf of building area including land or $1,058,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided office rent comparables, from CoStar, located in Naples. The leased space ranges in size from 810-sf to 5,596-sf; the rents range from $15.75 to $18.00/sf with a mean of $17.98/sf and a median of $17.50/sf on a triple net basis. Expenses for these rental rates ranges from $4.83/sf to $7.95/sf and include real estate taxes. PAO estimated a gross rent of $22.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $116,336. PAO provided vacancy support for office properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey, CoStar, for the years 2007 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 6.2% to 14.7% . The vacancy for 2019 was at 8.7%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 10% or $11,634. The effective gross income EGI is $104,702. PAO provided support for operating expenses from the leases mentioned above. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $31,411 or $5.94/sf, not including real estate taxes. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $73,291.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 2 sales on subject street, that range from 7% to 7.5%. PAO provided the cap rate for office properties in SW Florida, from real estate market survey companies, such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Realty Rates investor survey and RERC. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 4.67% to 8.25% with an average of 7.00%. PAO used a cap rate of 7.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 8.20%. The NOI of $73,291 capitalized at 8.20% indicates a value of $894,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $778,387. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or 2020-00339 Page 4 of 8 indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. 2020-00339 Page 5 of 8 Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. PET’s evidence consisted of a 10-page report, with a cover letter, a description of the property with aerial photograph, a photograph of the front of the building. PET included a land sales chart, an abstraction sales chart, where the land portion is abstracted, and an improved sales chart. PET included an Income Proforma and provided lease comparables with photographs. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET indicated the current total assessed value of $778,387 is $147.20/sf of building area and the land portion is $16.50/sf of land area. PET provided 18 sales marked as land sales in Collier County, with some sales located in the town of Immokalee, Bonita Springs, Marco Island and Everglade City, all at a distance from the subject; also, some of these sales are improved with industrial, retail and residential buildings as well as vacant land. All the sales sold from January 2018 to October 2020; the sales range in size from 6,098-sf to 78,844-sf and sold from $5.15/sf to $15.24/sf with an average of $10.96/sf. PET abstracted the improvements and the average of the sales is $9.79/sf of land area. Seven of these sales occurred in the year 2020, outside the appraisal date of 1/1/20. PET included 34 sales of vacant and improved sales that sold from January 2018 to October 2020. PET abstracted the land value from these sales and the average of all the sales is $10.80/sf. Indicating the assessment for the land portion of the subject is over assessed at $16.50/sf. PET provided 22 improved sales of retail and office buildings that sold in Collier County, with some sales located in the town of Immokalee and Everglade City, at a distance from the subject. These properties sold from February 2018 to October 2020, with nine sales having occurred after the appraisal date of 1/1/20. The building size ranges from 1,800-sf to 18,144-sf; the land size ranges from 6,098-df to 100,624-sf; the buildings were built from 1966 to 2018. The sales range from $45.96/sf to $144.54/sf with an average of $129.27/sf less 15% cost of sales indicates an average price of $109.88-sf as compared to the subject at $147.20/sf. 2020-00339 Page 6 of 8 PET provided an Income Approach and included seven rents. The rents range from 308- sf to 27,003-sf of vacant space, with asking rents that range from $5.50 to $18.50/sf. PET does not indicate if the rents are triple net or gross. PET estimated a rent of $18.00/sf triple net for a gross rent of $95,184. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% or $4,759.00 for an effective gross income (EGI) of $90,425. PET estimated operating expenses at 15% of EGI or $13,220.00 or $2.50/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is $77,205.00. PET utilized a cap rate of 9.75% for a value estimate of $791,844, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $673,067. As rebuttal, PAO indicated most of PET’s improved sales are in inferior locations to the subject with some sales not comparable. PAO indicated there were 2 sales on subject street that PET did not include. PAO indicated PET provides no support for the cap rate of 9.75%. As rebuttal PET indicated that PET’s comparable rents are for smaller spaces than the subject. PET indicated that PAO does not provide support for a $22.00/sf rent. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO provided two improved sales on subject street. PET provided a land analysis for the subject; the total property is being assessed and one value for the entire property is being sought. The land sales could be relevant if PET provided a Cost Approach for the subject. PET provided sales of various building types, located in inferior locations to the subject. PET’s income is not supported; the rents provided by PET do not indicate is the leases are triple net or gross. PET used a rent of $18.00 triple net and PAO used a rent $22.00/sf gross. PET’s NOI at $77,205 is higher than PAO’s NOI of $73,291. PET used a cap rate of 9.75% and provided no support. PAO provided support for the cap rate from the two sales on the same street as the subject, as well as support from cap rate surveys. A triple net cap rate appropriate for PET’s income, ranges from 7% to 8.25%. If a cap rate of 8.25% is applied to PET’s NOI of $77,205, the indicated value is $935,818 less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $795,445, which is higher than the current assessment. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00339: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s 2020-00339 Page 7 of 8 assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00339 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00342 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00342 17012520008 PIVOTAL TAX SOLUTIONS 1770 GALLEON DR NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 16,168,454.00 16,168,454.00 16,168,454.00 16,168,454.00 16,168,454.00 16,168,454.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,168,454.00 16,168,454.00 16,168,454.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/19/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00342: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Wayne Tannenbaum. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $16,168,454. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a luxury two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 6,699-sf and an adjusted building size of 10,543-sf. The adjusted size accounts the square footage of the second level, garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .97 acres or 41,817.6-sf. The property was built in 2014. The property is located on a waterway, with access to the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located at 1770 Galleon Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00342 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 37 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 5 land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are vacant land sales, occurred from February 2019 to November 2019. The sales range in size from 19,522.29-sf to 43,995.6-sf; and range in price from $246.14 to $362.71/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $275.00/sf or $11,499,840. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $100,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $6,935,128, the land value is estimated at $11,499,840 for a total cost of $18,534,968. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from May 2019 to October 2019. The sales range in adjusted building size from 7,716-sf to 10,128-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 26,571.6-sf to 108,900-sf. The buildings were built from 2002 to 2016. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $1,409.00 to $1,868/sf of building area including land; with a mean of $1,717/sf and a median of $1,763/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $1,717/sf of building area including land or $18,102,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 37-page report which included a cover page, with photograph of the subject, value summary with details of the property, location map, aerials and photos of subject. PET included a comparable sales chart and included sale listing sheets, for each sale, with characteristic of the property, photos and location map. PET included a Cost Analysis and included pages from the Marshall Valuation cost handbook on the calculator method for single family dwellings, life expectancy, local multipliers and depreciation tables. PET included a summary of values with requested value. PET provided DR form 486PAO. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach. 2020-00342 Page 3 of 7 PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided a sales chart with 3 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from May 2019 to October 2019. The sales range in building size from 7,638-sf to 8,461-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .56 to .66 acres; with a land to building ratio of 3.15 to 3.40; the subject has a building to land ratio of 3.97. The buildings were built from 2008 to 2016. PET made adjustments to these sales for building size and age. The adjusted sales range in value from $1,279.03/sf to $1,427.61/ sf, with an average of $1,372.65/sf. PET estimated a value of $1,372.65, less 15% cost of sales of $205.90/sf for an indicated value of $1,166.75/sf or $12,547,403, based on a building size of 10,754-sf. PET indicated their building size for the subject at 9,141-sf differed from PAO’s building size of 10,543-sf. After discussion with PAO on how the adjusted building size is calculated, PET agreed with PAO’s building size of 10,543-sf. PET developed the Cost Approach and estimated the building cost using Marshall Valuation, a recognized construction cost manual. The building cost is estimated at $194.00/sf (based on 9,141-sf) or $1,773,354, PET deducted 2% for depreciation and included the regional cost multiplier. The depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,633,614.00. PET added for extra features at $500,000. The total depreciated cost is estimated at $2,133,614. PET added a land value of $9,233,326 for a total cost of $11,366,940. PET deducted cost of sales of 15% for an indicated value of $9,661,899.00 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a 2020-00342 Page 4 of 7 preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that PAO and PET share one sale, PET’s sale # 2 and PAO’s 2020-00342 Page 5 of 7 sale # 4. PAO indicated the subject has 41,817-sf of land area and PET’s sales range in land size from 24,394-sf to 28,749-sf of land area; PET made no adjustment for land size. PAO indicated that lots in this neighborhood are being maximized, that is, the largest homes possible are being built on the sites; and the sites are being assessed on a square foot basis. PAO mentioned that PET used $194.00/sf base cost for the building cost; PAO indicated this is very low for the quality of the subject with all amenities. PAO indicated the owner’s permit to build the home in 2014 was $6,082,000 for the building only not including the land. PAO indicated PET used the assessed value for their land value, which is substantially lower than the current market value of the land. PAO indicated that most emphasis was placed on the sales comparison approach in estimating their value. As rebuttal, PET indicated that PET’s improved sales had a similar land to building ratio to the subject and they made no adjustments to the land. PET indicated that PAO’s sale # 3 is similar in building size and land size and noted the land adjustment is high. PET indicated that no cost of sale was deducted from any of PAO’s sales. As rebuttal, PAO noted that PET had the incorrect building size. PAO noted there were 8 qualified sales in subject neighborhood in the year 2019 and the weighted mean assessment for these sales is 77% of market value; therefore, the cost of sales has been taken into consideration. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate land and improved sales in the neighborhood for an indication of value. PET had the incorrect building size and made minimal adjustments to the comparable sales, properties in this neighborhood are all unique and different and adjustments for amenities are warranted. The Cost Approach, although not much weight was placed on it, was understated by PET. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00342: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted 2020-00342 Page 6 of 7 appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00342 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ . (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00359 83340320001 MELLON DEVELOPMENT LLC 116 EDGEMEREWAY S NAPLES, FL 34105 733,460.00 733,460.00 651,650.00 554,718.00 554,718.00 554,718.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 504,718.00 504,718.00 504,718.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 01/30/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/01/2021 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ . (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00360 83340280002 MELLON DEVELOPMENT LLC 114 EDGEMEREWAY S NAPLES, FL 34105 580,844.00 580,844.00 580,844.00 580,844.00 580,844.00 580,844.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 580,844.00 580,844.00 580,844.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 01/29/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/01/2021 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00371 Page 1 of 9 Collier ✔ 2020-00371 67410000808 KYLE ANDREW SHEEHAN 2324 PINE RIDGERD NAPLES, FL 34105✔ ✔ 14,547,204.00 14,547,204.00 14,547,204.00 11,814,360.00 11,814,360.00 11,814,360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,814,360.00 11,814,360.00 11,814,360.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/20/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00371: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, were the agents for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Kyle Sheehan, agent for PET. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $14,547,204. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story Class C-average, big box retail building, known as Target. The building area is 121,602-sf; the land size is 488,743-sf or 11.22 acres. The building was built in 1994 and has been well maintained. The property is located at 2324 Pine Ridge Road, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 94 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, 2020-00371 Page 2 of 9 limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, subject exhibits, with interior and exterior photographs of the subject, aerials and site maps, regional and neighborhood market analysis, description of the site and improvements, market analysis, highest and best use analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. PAO provided general assumption and limiting conditions, the deed with the legal description, impact fees, description sheets of each land and improved sales with photographs, market support for cap rates and the property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO indicated that the subject is located at a busy commercial intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport Pulling Road. The traffic count at the subject is approximately 49,500 vehicles/day along Pine Ridge Road and 38,500 vehicles along Airport Pulling Road. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 8 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2016 to January 2020. The land sales range in size from 148,104-sf to 2,275,977-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 13,500 to 61,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $6.05 to $39.21/sf. The mean of all the sales is $21.16/sf and the median is $19.50/ sf. PAO reconciled a value at $20.00/sf x 488,743-sf or $9,770,000 rounded. PAO included notable sales of parcels, just north of the subject, on Naples Boulevard. Naples Boulevard has an average traffic count of 13,600 vehicles/day and has been developed with big box stores such as Costco, Kohls, Lowes, Best Buy. The sales of these parcels occurred from 9/1997 to 2/2016; range in land size from 184,289-sf to 650,351-sf and sold from $7.69/sf to $17.02/sf with the sale in 2/2016 at $17.02/sf. PAO provided these sales an indication of land appreciation in the area over the years. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $5,471,555, plus impact fees estimated at $1,981,000, plus the land value estimated at $9,770,000 for a total cost of $17,223,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from March 2013 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 30,585-sf to 126,880-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 3.00 acres to 23.36 acres with a land to building ratio ranging from 12% to 33%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 25%. The buildings were built from 1996 to 2016. The sales range from $63.00 to $235.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $146.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $143.00/sf of building area including land. PAO indicated Sales # 2020-00371 Page 3 of 9 4 and 8 are close in location. PAO reconciled a value at $150.00/sf of building area including land based on the size and location of the property, or $18,240,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market extracted market rents in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties of big box properties. The building sizes range from 42,237-sf to 123,522-sf; the land size is 6.84 to 19.760 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 31%. The rents range from $5.00 to $11.34/sf with a mean of $8.20/sf and a median of $8.08/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, that range in size from 42,000-sf to 62,000-sf with a mean of 52,556-sf and a median of 55,000-sf; the rents range from $8.57 to $19.33/sf with a mean of $12.15/sf and a median of $11.02/sf on a modified gross basis, (where the owner pays most of the expenses). PAO estimated a Gross rent (includes all common area maintenance (CAM) of $14.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $1,702,428. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $85,121. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 6 single tenant retail store and the operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $404,327. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,212,980.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 5 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.66% to 9.42% with a mean of 7.18% and a median of 7.01% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.33-$11.34/sf). PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of office buildings in Naples, and the cap rate for these properties ranges from 6.25% to 7.70%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 4.64% to 8.58% with an average of 6.63%. The cap rate developed by the Band of 2020-00371 Page 4 of 9 Investment is indicated at 6.75%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.25% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.45%. The NOI of $1,212,980.00 capitalized at 7.45% indicates a value of $16,282,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $14,547,204. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal 2020-00371 Page 5 of 9 market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 63-page. The report consists a cover letter, table of contents, property summary and opinion of value. PET included the Income Analysis and included market rents in chart form, with detail sheets on each rent comparable, with photos; Pet provided market support for cap rates from national market surveys. PET included improved sales in chart form, with detail sheets on each sale with photos. PET provided graphs on the decline of retail sales in department stores and the increase in e- commerce sales. PET provided information on the 1st and 8th criterion as well as from DR-493. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison and the Income Approach. The Cost Approach was not developed. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 8 rental comparables of big box properties. One rent is located on Naples, and is a Hobby Lobby store with 55,000-sf, 2020-00371 Page 6 of 9 built in 2016; with an effective rent of $10.00/sf triple net. The remaining rents are located throughout the state of Florida and range in size from 52,000-sf to 173,776-sf. The buildings were built from 1970 to 2008. The rents range from $3.63/sf to $10.00/sf on a triple net basis. PET estimated a rent of $8.00/sf triple net on an area of 121,602-sf or $972,816. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% or $48,641. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $924,175. PET estimated the operating expenses at 15% of EGI or $138,626 or $1.14/sf. The NOI is estimated at $785,549. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 4 sales located in northern Florida. The cap rates range from 6.7% to 7.65%. PET provided support from national surveys, such as RERC, CBRE and Realty Rates, for the year 2019. The cap rates range from 6.8% to 10.3% for retail properties, with an average of 8% to 8.2%. PET used a cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of $785,549.00 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of $10,473,985, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $8,872,487 or $72.96/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales and 8 listings of properties throughout the state of Florida. PET provided one sale in Fort Myers, of a Home Depot, that sold in December 2017 for $47.73/sf and is 167,606-sf in size. The other sales occurred from December 2017 to December 2019. The sales and listings range in building size from 50,090-sf to 212,000-sf. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2018. PET made adjustments for age and building size; the adjusted sales and listings range from $30.88/sf to $118.24/sf of building area including land, with an average of adjusted sales at $66.13/sf. PET estimated a value of $67.90/sf less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $57.72/sf or $7,018,307. PET’s reconciled value conclusion $9,000,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET had one rent comparable in Naples of Hobby Lobby; this rent. comparable is smaller than the subject and is located in an inferior location with less commercial development, as compared to the subject. The renaming rents and improved sales are located outside Naples and throughout Florida and are not indicative of the southwest Florida market. PAO indicated PET’s cap rate is high at 7.5%. PAO indicated their base cap rate is 6.25% and loaded with a mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.45%. PET used a triple net lease rate and the cap rate should be lower than 7.5%. PET’s cap rates are derived from sales mostly located outside Naples in inferior locations and indicate higher cap rates. 2020-00371 Page 7 of 9 As rebuttal PET indicated the Hobby Lobby rent in East Naples is half the size of the subject, and based on the subject size, warrants a lower rent. PET indicted the lease to Hobby Lobby was signed in 2015 and the building was new construction; the subject is older having been built in 1994. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s rents and improved sales are mostly from data gathered throughout the state of Florida, with little support for the Naples market. PET’s rents are located in inferior locations, as compared to the subject. PET’s rent is understated. PET’s cap rates are derived from sales, most of which are located outside the Naples area, in inferior locations and overstating a cap rate appropriate for the subject property and location. SM has reconstructed the Income Approach. The Hobby Lobby lease was signed in the year 2015; rents have increased since that date. Adjusting for the time the lease was negotiated, the smaller size of the building and age, as well as location. A rent of $10.00/ sf triple net for the subject is reasonable. The indicated gross rent at $10.00/sf is $1,216,020, less 5% vacancy indicates an effective rent of $1,155,219; deducting 15% operating expenses indicates an NOI of $981,936. Capitalizing the NOI at 6.25% indicates a value of $15,711,000 rounded, including cost of sales. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00371: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: 2020-00371 Page 8 of 9 or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00371 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00372 Page 1 of 9 Collier ✔ 2020-00372 24745001065 KYLE ANDREW SHEEHAN 2415 TARPON BAYBLVD NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 17,362,647.00 17,362,647.00 17,362,647.00 17,025,498.00 17,025,498.00 17,025,498.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,025,498.00 17,025,498.00 17,025,498.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/20/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00372: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. On the telephone, were the agents for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Kyle Sheehan, agent for PET. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $17,362,647. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story Class C-average, big box retail building, known as Target. The building area is 175,337-sf; the land size is 634,412-sf or 14.61 acres. The building was built in 2007 and has been well maintained. The property is located southeast of Interstate 75 (I-75) and Immokalee Road, with an exit off I-75 at Immokalee Road. The property is located at 2415 Tarpon Bay Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 88 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00372 Page 2 of 9 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, subject exhibits, with interior and exterior photographs of the subject, aerials and site maps, regional and neighborhood market analysis, description of the site and improvements, market analysis, highest and best use analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. PAO provided general assumption and limiting conditions, the deed with the legal description, impact fees, description sheets of each land and improved sales with photographs, market support for cap rates and the property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO indicated the subject is located off a busy commercial street, Immokalee Road, with visibility to Immokalee Road; the traffic count at the subject is approximately 48,000 vehicles/day along Immokalee Road. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 8 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2016 to January 2020. The land sales range in size from 148,104-sf to 2,275,977-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 13,500 to 61,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $6.05 to $39.21/sf. The mean of all the sales is $21.16/sf and the median is $19.50/ sf. PAO reconciled a value at $18.00/sf x 634,412-sf or $11,420,000 rounded. PAO included notable sales of parcels, on Naples Boulevard, south of the subject. Naples Boulevard has an average traffic count of 13,600 vehicles/day and has been developed with big box stores such as Costco, Kohls, Lowes, Best Buy. The sales of these parcels occurred from 9/1997 to 2/2016; range in land size from 184,289-sf to 650,351-sf and sold from $7.69/sf to $17.02/sf with the sale in 2/2016 at $17.02/sf. PAO provided these sales an indication of land appreciation in the area over the years. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $11,723,113, plus impact fees estimated at $2,323,000, plus the land value estimated at $11,420,000 for a total cost of $25,466,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of properties in Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from March 2013 to November 2018. The sales range in building size from 30,585-sf to 126,880-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 3.00 acres to 23.36 acres with a land to building ratio ranging from 12% to 33%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 25%. The buildings were built from 1996 to 2016. The sales range from $63.00 to $235.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $146.00/sf of building area including land 2020-00372 Page 3 of 9 and a median price of $143.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $150.00/sf of building area including land based on the size and location of the property, or $26,301,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided market extracted market rents in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties of big box properties. The building sizes range from 42,237-sf to 123,522-sf; the land size is 6.84 to 19.760 acres, with an FAR of 14% to 31%. The rents range from $5.00 to $11.34/sf with a mean of $8.20/sf and a median of $8.08/sf on a triple net basis, (where the tenant pays most of the expenses.) PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, that range in size from 42,000-sf to 62,000-sf with a mean of 52,556-sf and a median of 55,000-sf; the rents range from $8.57 to $19.33/sf with a mean of $12.15/sf and a median of $11.02/sf on a modified gross basis, (where the owner pays most of the expenses). PAO estimated a Gross rent (includes all common area maintenance (CAM) of $14.00/sf for the subject for a gross rent of $2,454,718. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $122,736. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 6 single tenant retail store and the operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 15 multi-tenant retail centers in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% to 27.2%, including real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $582,996. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,748,987. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 5 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 4.66% to 9.42% with a mean of 7.18% and a median of 7.01% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.33-$11.34/sf). PAO provided the cap rate of alternate investments, from the sale of office buildings in Naples, and the cap rate for these properties ranges from 6.25% to 7.70%. PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Boulder Group and Net Lease Advisors. The average cap rate from these sources ranges 2020-00372 Page 4 of 9 from 4.64% to 8.58% with an average of 6.63%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.75%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.25% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.45%. The NOI of $1,748,987.00 capitalized at 7.45% indicates a value of $23,476,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $17,362,647. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject 2020-00372 Page 5 of 9 utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 63-page. The report consists a cover letter, table of contents, property summary and opinion of value. PET included the Income Analysis and included market rents in chart form, with detail sheets on each rent comparable, with photos; Pet provided market support for cap rates from national market surveys. PET included improved sales in chart form, with detail sheets on each sale with photos. PET provided graphs on the decline of retail sales in department stores and the increase in e- commerce sales. PET provided information on the 1st and 8th criterion as well as from DR-493. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal-response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison and the Income Approach. The Cost Approach was not developed. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 8 rental comparables of big box 2020-00372 Page 6 of 9 properties. One rent is located on Naples, and is a Hobby Lobby store with 55,000-sf, built in 2016; with an effective rent of $10.00/sf triple net. The remaining rents are located throughout the state of Florida and range in size from 52,000-sf to 173,776-sf. The buildings were built from 1970 to 2008. The rents range from $3.63/sf to $10.00/sf on a triple net basis. PET estimated a rent of $8.00/sf triple net on an area of 175,337-sf or $1,402,696. PET estimated a vacancy of 5% or $70,135. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $1,332,561. PET estimated the operating expenses at 20% of EGI or $266,512 or $1.52/sf. The NOI is estimated at $1,066,049. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 4 sales located in northern Florida. The cap rates range from 6.7% to 7.65%. PET provided support from national surveys, such as RERC, CBRE and Realty Rates, for the year 2019. The cap rates range from 6.8% to 10.3% for retail properties, with an average of 8% to 8.2%. PET used a cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of $1,066,049.00 capitalized at 7.5% indicates a value of $14,213,986, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $12,038,054 or $68.66/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales and 8 listings of properties throughout the state of Florida. PET provided one sale in Fort Myers, of a Home Depot, that sold in December 2017 for $47.73/sf and is 167,606-sf in size. The other sales occurred from December 2017 to December 2019. The sales and listings range in building size from 50,090-sf to 212,000-sf. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2018. PET made adjustments for age and building size; the adjusted sales and listings, range from $27.94/sf to $112.83/sf of building area including land, with an average of adjusted sales at $63.21/sf. PET estimated a value of $65.20/sf less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $55.42/sf or $9,716,802. PET’s reconciled value conclusion $12,000,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET had one rent comparable in Naples of Hobby Lobby; this rent. comparable is smaller than the subject and is located in an inferior location with less commercial development, as compared to the subject. The renaming rents and improved sales are located outside Naples and throughout Florida and are not indicative of the southwest Florida market. PAO indicated PET’s cap rate is high at 7.5%. PAO indicated their base cap rate is 6.25% and loaded with a mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.45%. PET used a triple net lease rate and the cap rate should be lower than 7.5%. PET’s cap rates are derived from sales mostly located outside Naples in inferior locations and indicate higher cap rates. 2020-00372 Page 7 of 9 As rebuttal PET indicated the Hobby Lobby rent in East Naples is half the size of the subject, and based on the subject size, warrants a lower rent. PET indicted the lease to Hobby Lobby was signed in 2015 and the building was new construction; the subject is older having been built in 2007. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET’s rents and improved sales are mostly from data gathered throughout the state of Florida, with little support for the Naples market. PET’s rents are located in inferior locations, as compared to the subject. PET’s rent is understated. PET’s cap rates are derived from sales, most of which are located outside the Naples area, in inferior locations and overstating a cap rate appropriate for the subject property and location. SM has reconstructed the Income Approach. The Hobby Lobby lease was signed in the year 2015; rents have increased since that date. Adjusting for the time the lease was negotiated, the smaller size of the building and age, as well as location. A rent of $9.00/sf triple net for the subject is reasonable for the size. The indicated gross rent at $9.00/sf is $1,578,033, less 5% vacancy indicates an effective rent of $1,499,131; deducting 15% operating expenses indicates an NOI of $1,274,261. Capitalizing the NOI at 6.25% indicates a value of $20,388,200 rounded, including cost of sales. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00372: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: 2020-00372 Page 8 of 9 or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00372 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00375 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00375 25910000751 JORGE L MARRERO 9401 TRIANGLEBLVD NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 11,887,381.00 11,887,381.00 11,887,381.00 11,887,381.00 11,887,381.00 11,887,381.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,887,381.00 11,887,381.00 11,887,381.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/06/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00375: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented at the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner [Jorge Marrero] did not attend the hearing on the phone or in person. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 4-story, 103-room Staybridge Suites hotel. The subject was built in 2019; thus, the subject is 1 year old & in the ‘lease- up’ phase of establishing itself in the market. The subject’s address is 9401 /Triangle Boulevard in Naples. The subject is located in a semi-secluded area behind some of the other retail properties in the NW quadrant of the East Trail & Collier Boulevard. The building area is 75,658 SF. It is situated upon a site of 102,802 SF. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject site last sold for $2,250,000 (about $22/SF) in November 2017. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all three traditional approaches to support the subject’s assessment of $11,887,381 or 115,411/room. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, table of contents, evidence list, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, tax roll screen for the subject, various interior & exterior photographs/views, aerials, building sketch, land sales map, land sales grid, Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, cap rates, expense ratio analysis, simplified DCF, reconciliation, roster of construction permits, impact fee calculations, land sales aerials/details, partial year historical operating statement, PwC National Limited-Service Midscale & Economy Lodging Segment article, RERC Investment Criteria 4th Quarter 2019, 2020 Smith Travel Research (STR) statistics, and building card information. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO provides a good analysis of land, building, site work, impact fees, and other costs including entrepreneurial profit. The PAO’s total Cost Approach estimate was $18,890,000 & it is given strong weight because the subject is so new. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides various sales resulting in a conclusion of $19,055,000. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO provides a value indication of $18,692,000, or $422/SF. The PAO reconciles the ‘real estate only’ portion of the value to be $14,630,000, or $142,039/room. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is very weak. The PET submitted an email indicating he would like to have his evidence heard in his absence. The PET submits several pages of tax roll information & a TRIM notice that was not even the subject (but I believe the PET intended it to be). The PET submitted partial year (August thru December 2019) operating data, given the subject is a new property and did not open until August 2019. Finally, the PET submitted information related to the VAB process, case law, etc. which was not specific ‘evidence’ related to 2020-00375 Page 2 of 3 this hearing. RULING: The PET failed to provide any ‘approach’ to value and also failed to provide any data to support a value conclusion. The PAO provided 3 independent approaches to value. Also in evidence is the deed for the subject’s land purchase and building permit data to construct the new hotel. That data alone (with reasonable profit and impact fees) is sufficient to support the assessment. The PAO goes into much greater depth to support his assessment, yet the PET’s evidence is extremely limited to only a partial year of operating information. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00375: 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. 2020-00375 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00377 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00377 25368002589 SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ.12730 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 11,206,799.00 11,206,799.00 11,206,799.00 11,037,212.00 11,037,212.00 11,037,212.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,037,212.00 11,037,212.00 11,037,212.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/11/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00377: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.) was represented via telephone by Mr. John Muratides, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Lowe’s home improvement store located at 12730 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. The subject was built in 2010. The adjusted building area is 124,919 SF situated upon a site of 578,280 SF (i.e. 13.275 acres). The subject is located at the major intersection of Tamiami Trail East & Collier Boulevard. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2009 for $9,500,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 118% of that prior sales price, but 11 years have transpired since that sale. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $11,206,799, or $89.71/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO did provide a table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, area/neighborhood analysis, subject photographs, locations maps, zoning map, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), improved sales grid/map, Income Approach, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/back-up data for improved sales, PwC Cap Rate Analysis, The Boulder Group Big Box Report, and Avison Young’s cap rate. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $15/SF ($8,670,000), plus $1,280,000 of impact fees for a total of $9,950,000 (which is 88.8% of the total just value being contested). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. In my final ruling, I will make additional comments regarding the PAO’s Cost Approach. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, indirect costs, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $17,248,000 to support the subject’s assessment. In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 12 sales. Eight of the 12 are located in Lee County. Sale #3 (Home Depot) was the tenant buyout of a land lease; thus, it is not given any weight. Sales 1, 7, & 11 are fee simple sales that are not 2020-00377 Page 2 of 5 impacted by leases, while the remaining sales are leased fee transactions with leases. The relevant sales have $/SF indicators that range from $73-$235/SF. The PAO concludes $130/SF X 124,919 SF = $16,239,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $12/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.95% (6.75% + 1.2%) to NOI of $1,068,057 for a value indication of $13,435,000, or $108/SF. In the reconciliation process, the PAO concludes a final estimate of value of $15,750,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (286 pages). The PET submitted a cover letter, index of evidence, property summary, aerials, site plans/surveys, property record card, comparable rent analysis, Income Approach, PAO’s 2019 Income Approach, cap rate analysis, Comparable Sales Approach, relevant retail articles, big box retail article, RERC big box study, 2019 VAB decision, FL DOR property tax bulletin, DR-493, Cost Approach, Marshall Valuation back-up support, & portions of the 2020 VAB training manual (modules 4 & 6). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach, Cost Approach, & an Income Approach in evidence. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PET projects rent at $7/SF NNN, vacancy/ collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 5%, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of $789,176 for a preliminary value indication of $10,522,344. The PET then makes a reserve deduction of $24,921, and a 15% COS deduction for a final Income Approach indication of $8,922,809, or $71/SF of NRA. Much of the PET’s own cap rate information suggestions the use of a 7.5% rate appears a high for this class of property. The PAO used 6.75% as the base rate (i.e. before loading), which appears more in line with the bulk of survey information. The PET presented 7 big box ‘asking’ rents, and another grid of 9 actual rents. Only actual rent #3 was in Collier County, and that was a former Kmart lease that ended in 2018; thus, it is not relevant. The rents presented do not particularly appear to reflect current market conditions, as most of the existing leases were negotiated years ago. None of the asking rents are located in SW Florida, but two are in Pasco County. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 5 ‘big box’ improved sales. None of them are located in Collier County. Two are in Broward, one in Hudson in Pasco County, one in Sarasota County, and one in Manatee County. The subject was built in 2010, yet those sales were built between 1969-76, and Sale #1 (in Broward) was built in 1994. The PET’s grid states Sale #1 was a “former Walmart purchased by a car dealer”, but it actually was subdivided for 5 junior boxes, which cost a great deal to set up new fire walls & separate mechanical features for each bay. Also, it is actually located in the city of North Lauderdale, which is far inferior to Fort Lauderdale (stated in in PET’s grid). PET’s Sale #2 (a former ’69 vintage 2-story Sears in a struggling mall) apparently sold for $67/SF. It is being shelled out for redevelopment, so the consideration paid better reflects a shell and again, it is a 2-story structure attached to a mall while the subject is a 1-story freestanding store. Thus, most of the sales reflect much older buildings & some of the PET’s comments 2020-00377 Page 3 of 5 appear to be erroneous. The PET appears to demonstrate sales of older, struggling stores in (generally) inferior markets IN THE COST APPROACH, the PET estimates the building cost new, site work, depreciation (of both site work & the building). The PET makes a 15% COS deduction to the depreciated value of the (improvements + site work). The PET fails to consider entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, some soft costs, impact fees [which are substantial], and also improperly uses the PAO’s land value allocation in the assessment. The PET should go to the market for much better & more representative land sales indicators than the 7 land sales provided. Such sales should reflect high traffic flow at (or near) a major intersection. Furthermore, better details [aerials, Costar sheets, etc.] about such sales should be provided. Due to the multitude of errors in analysis, I give very little weight to the PET’s Cost Approach. FINAL RULING: 1.The subject last sold in June 2009 for $9,500,000. The 2020 assessment equates to 118% of that prior sales price, but 10.5 years have transpired since that sale. Thus, with moderate appreciation over that time frame, it does not seem unreasonable that the subject’s value has escalated enough to justify the PAO’s $11,206,799 assessment. 2.The PET’s Cost Approach is not properly prepared and lacks significant items that should be included in the proper estimation of value in a Cost approach. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach lacks any sales in Collier County, and some of the sales used have incorrect data or lack sufficient comparability to the subject. 3.It appears localized rent comparable data was difficult to find for both parties to this hearing. There is a very significant variance of $278,882 in the NOI’s between the PAO & PET. 4. In fairness to the PET’s substantial evidence related to the decline of big box stores and the impact of e-commerce throughout the country, the subject’s location in Collier County and at a very significant intersection warrants consideration. A decline in other areas does not automatically imply a decline in the subject’s neighborhood, particularly when the PAO’s evidence indicates a 20% population gain between 2010 & 2019. That trend is likely to continue & could particularly benefit the subject’s general area where more land available for development exits. It would be interesting to know (and was not disclosed) what the year-to-year gross sales were at the subject’s store. Such information could be helpful in showing a rise or decline of the immediate area and appropriateness of the store size in place. 5.The PET’s evidence & testimony suggests a trend of downsizing of many big box stores nationwide; thus, implying possible functional obsolescence (i.e. a ‘super adequacy’ of space) exists at the subject. This was not proven for the subject’s location. In fact, some stores (such as Walmart) rent out space within their big boxes to complimentary (or non-competitive) users, such as insurance companies, liquor sales, fast food restaurants, bank branches, or other types of kiosk space users. No evidence presented suggests that has yet happened at the subject. 6.It is apparent from the evidence of both parties that there was difficulty locating a sufficient number of large ‘big box’ SALES in Collier County for a really good Sales Comparison Approach. Similarly, both parties had difficulty locating a sufficient number 2020-00377 Page 4 of 5 of large ‘big box’ RENT comparables in Collier County for a really good Income Approach. Given these conditions & given the subject’s assessment (by law) is to be ‘fee simple’, the Cost Approach can serve as a very good guide to reasonableness. 7.The PAO provided a Cost Approach that had some slight errors in the matter in which items were treated. Impact fees ‘run with the land’ and are not subject to depreciation. I have recalculated the math associated with the PAO’s cost conclusion, yet still using the basic logic of the PAO’s intent. The corrected figure is $17,171,000 (resulting in a SAR of 65.3%), which is $77,000 less than the PAO’s conclusion of $17,248,000. If I insert the PET’s desired land value used in the PET’s Cost Approach of $4,684,068 (i.e. $8.10/ SF) and recalculate all of the same inputs, the resulting (hypothetical) Cost Approach conclusion becomes $12,862,000, which still results in a SAR of 87.1%, and basically is still supportive of the PAO’s just value of $11,206,799. Thus, the Cost Approach is able to do a good job of testing the reasonableness of the PAO’s ‘fee simple’ assessment in this case, particularly since the Cost Approach is not influenced by lease positions. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00377: 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. 2020-00377 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00378 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00378 66760001752 SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ.6415 NAPLESBLVD NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 10,312,887.00 10,312,887.00 10,312,887.00 10,312,887.00 10,312,887.00 10,312,887.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,312,887.00 10,312,887.00 10,312,887.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/11/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00378: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.) was represented via telephone by Mr. John Muratides, Esq. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Lowe’s home improvement store located at 6415 Naples Boulevard in Naples. The subject was built in 1998. The adjusted building area is 128,908 SF situated upon sites that equal 650,351 SF (i.e. 14.93 acres). [Note: The PAO’s evidence package originally reported the subject’s building size as 140,526 SF. At the hearing, the PAO corrected the size to be 128,908 SF, which will be used throughout this ruling.] PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold as a land sale in 1997 for $5,000,000 (i.e. $7.69/SF of site area). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $10,312,887, or $80/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO did provide a table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, area/neighborhood analysis, subject photographs, locations maps, zoning map, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), improved sales grid/map, Income Approach, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/back-up data for improved sales, PwC Cap Rate Analysis, The Boulder Group Big Box Report, and Avison Young’s cap rate. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $20/SF ($13,010,000), plus $1,320,000 of impact fees for a total of $14,330,000 (which is 139.0% of the total just value being contested). The land value estimate was based upon the 11 commercial land sale indicators. In my final ruling, I will make additional comments regarding the PAO’s Cost Approach. The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the depreciated value of the improvements, site improvements/paving, indirect costs, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $19,351,000 [corrected verbally by the PAO at the hearing, due to the PAO’s revision to 2020-00378 Page 2 of 5 building size] to support the subject’s assessment of $10,312,887. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 sales. Eight of the 12 are located in Lee County. Sale #3 (Home Depot) was the tenant buyout of a land lease; thus, it is not given any weight. Sales 1, 7, & 11 are fee simple sales that are not impacted by leases, while the remaining sales are leased fee transactions with leases. The relevant sales have $/SF indicators that range from $73-$235/SF. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 140,256 SF = $21,079,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. Many of the sales are located in fairly close proximity to the subject, as shown in the sales location map provided by the PAO. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $14/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.95% to NOI of $1,290,206 for a value indication of $16,229,000, or $125.47/SF (before any COS is applied). [Note: The PAO’s figures have been corrected to reflect the same NRA used by the PET’s Income Approach, which is 129,344 SF.] The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted the subject’s evidence (295 pages). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach, Cost Approach & an Income Approach in evidence. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, the PET projects rent at $6.50/SF NNN, vacancy/ collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 5%, and applies an unloaded cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of $758,164 for a preliminary value indication of $10,116,857. The PET then makes a reserve deduction of $23,961, and a 15% COS deduction for a final Income Approach indication of $8,578,961, or $61/SF of NRA. Much of the PET’s own cap rate information suggestions the use of a 7.5% rate appears a high for this class of property. The PAO used 6.75% as the base rate (i.e. before loading), which appears more in line with the bulk of survey information. The PET presented 7 big box ‘asking’ rents, and another grid of 9 actual rents. Only actual rent #3 was in Collier County, and that was a former Kmart lease that ended in 2018; thus, it is not relevant. The rents presented do not particularly appear to reflect current market conditions, as most of the existing leases were negotiated years ago. None of the asking rents are located in SW Florida, but two are in Pasco County. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a roster of 5 ‘big box’ improved sales. None of them are located in Collier County. Two are in Broward, one in Hudson in Pasco County, one in Sarasota County, and one in Manatee County. The subject was built in 1998, yet those sales were built between 1969-76, and Sale #1 (in Broward) was built in 1994. The PET’s grid states Sale #1 was a “former Walmart purchased by a car dealer”, but it actually was subdivided for 5 junior boxes, which cost a great deal to set up new fire walls & separate mechanical features for each bay. Also, it is actually located in the city of North Lauderdale, which is far inferior to Fort Lauderdale (stated in in PET’s grid). PET’s Sale #2 (a former ’69 vintage 2-story Sears in a struggling mall) apparently sold for $67/SF. It is being shelled out for redevelopment, so the consideration paid better reflects a shell and again, it is a 2-story structure attached to a mall while the subject is a 1-story freestanding store. 2020-00378 Page 3 of 5 Thus, most of the sales reflect much older buildings & some of the PET’s comments appear to be erroneous. The PET appears to demonstrate sales of older, struggling stores in (generally) inferior markets. The sales provided by the PET do not appear to lead to meaningful conclusions. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PET estimates the building cost new, site work, depreciation (of both site work & the building). The PET makes a 15% COS deduction to the depreciated value of the (improvements + site work). The PET fails to consider entrepreneurial profit, taxes during construction, some soft costs, impact fees [which are substantial], and also improperly uses the PAO’s land value allocation in the assessment at $7.65/SF. The PET should go to the market for much better & more representative land sales indicators than the 7 land sales provided. Such sales should reflect high traffic flow at (or near) a major intersection. Furthermore, better details [aerials, Costar sheets, etc.] about such sales should be provided. Due to the multitude of errors in analysis, I give very NO weight to the PET’s Cost Approach. The PET’s Cost Approach conclusion of $7,978,119 is more than $5M less than the PAO’s land value estimate (before even considering $1.32M in impact fees). FINAL RULING: 1.The PET’s Cost Approach is not properly prepared and lacks significant items that should be included in the proper estimation of value in a Cost approach. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach lacks any sales in Collier County, and some of the sales used have incorrect data or lack sufficient comparability to the subject. 2.It appears localized rent comparable data was difficult to find for both parties to this hearing. There is a very significant variance of $531,422 in the NOI’s between the PAO & PET. 3. In fairness to the PET’s substantial evidence related to the decline of big box stores and the impact of e-commerce throughout the country, the subject’s location in a good demographic area of Collier County and within a power center retail environment warrants consideration. A decline in other areas does not automatically imply a decline in the subject’s neighborhood, particularly when the PAO’s evidence indicates a 20% population gain between 2010 & 2019. That trend is likely to continue & could particularly benefit the subject’s general area. It would be interesting to know (and was not disclosed) what the year-to-year gross sales were at the subject’s store. Such information could be helpful in showing a rise or decline of the immediate area and appropriateness of the store size in place. 4.The PET’s evidence & testimony suggests a trend of downsizing of many big box stores nationwide; thus, implying possible functional obsolescence (i.e. a ‘super adequacy’ of space) exists at the subject. This was not proven for the subject’s location. In fact, some stores (such as Walmart) rent out space within their big boxes to complimentary (or non-competitive) users, such as insurance companies, liquor sales, fast food restaurants, bank branches, or other types of kiosk space users. No evidence presented suggests that has yet happened at the subject. 5.It is apparent from the evidence of both parties that there was difficulty locating a sufficient number of large ‘big box’ SALES in Collier County for a really good Sales Comparison Approach. Similarly, both parties had difficulty locating a sufficient number 2020-00378 Page 4 of 5 of large ‘big box’ RENT comparables in Collier County for a really good Income Approach. Given these conditions & given the subject’s assessment (by law) is to be ‘fee simple’, the Cost Approach can serve as a very good guide to reasonableness. 6.The PAO provided a Cost Approach that had some slight errors in the matter in which items were treated. Impact fees ‘run with the land’ and are not subject to depreciation. I have recalculated the math associated with the PAO’s cost conclusion, yet still using the basic logic of the PAO’s intent. The corrected figure is $19,348,000 (resulting in a SAR of 53.3%), which is just $3,000 less than the PAO’s revised conclusion presented at the hearing (and noted earlier in this ruling). If I cut the PAO’s land value in half to $10/SF, a SAR of 82.4% would still result; thus, supporting the PAO’s assessment. Thus, the Cost Approach is able to do a good job of testing the reasonableness of the PAO’s ‘fee simple’ assessment in this case, even if using an extremely low land value for this location. However, I do give strong weight to the PAO’s Cost Approach as revised, given it is not influenced by lease positions. The PET failed to overcome the PAO’s presumption of correctness established at the hearing. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00378: 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. 2020-00378 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00397 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00397 52505043701 ROBERT J. & KAREN K. NOWAK 6225 COMPART ISLEDR NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 1,270,866.00 1,270,866.00 1,270,866.00 1,264,083.00 1,264,083.00 1,264,083.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,264,083.00 1,264,083.00 1,264,083.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/29/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00397: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert and Karen Nowak. The hearing was opened and all parties were sworn in for the hearing. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $1,270,866. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 6225 Compart Isle Drive, Naples. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PAO indicated that the subject sold in August 2020 for $1,479,962. PET provided no evidence and wanted to discuss assessments in area and their relation to the subject property is not market value evidence that would be considered for Just Value purposes. The Petitioner did not provide any evidence for consideration and therefore the PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00397: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there 2020-00397 Page 2 of 3 is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00397 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00415 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00415 66760010044 BRIAN DEPOTTER 6381 NAPLESBLVD NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 10,609,093.00 10,609,093.00 10,609,093.00 10,285,845.00 10,285,845.00 10,285,845.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,285,845.00 10,285,845.00 10,285,845.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/25/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00415: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Liz Molina , Mr. Jack Redding and Mr. Chis DelPo. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Brian DePotter, from First Pointe Advisors LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $10,609,093. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. No evidence was admitted into record. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in this case the Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $10,609,093. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence in a timely manner to the VAB and PET did not exchange evidence with PAO, when requested. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00415: The Petitioner was present at the hearing, but the Petitioner had not previously submitted their evidence. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld because the Petitioner has not 2020-00415 Page 2 of 3 proved its burden under Florida Statute Section 194.301. Therefore, the requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00415 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00425 Page 1 of 11 Collier ✔ 2020-00425 16054880008 BRIAN DEPOTTER 4601 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 17,132,146.00 17,132,146.00 17,132,146.00 17,132,146.00 17,132,146.00 17,132,146.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,132,146.00 17,132,146.00 17,132,146.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/28/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/03/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00425: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Liz Molina , Mr. Jack Redding and Mr. Chis DelPo. On the telephone, the petitioner (PET) was Mr. Brian DePotter, from First Pointe Advisors LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $17,132,146. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story, class C-average, retail center, anchored by Publix grocery store and Walgreen Pharmacy. The total building area is 76,403-sf; the land size is 365,468-sf or 8.390 acres. The property was developed in 1986. PAO indicated the subject sold in September 2014 for $30,500,000 ($218.90/sf); the sale included the subject and the retail center just south and across the street from the subject, at 866 Neapolitan Way, Naples Fl. The total building area for both centers is 139,335-sf; the land size is 635,540-sf or 14.59 acres. The same two properties sold again, in June 2018, for $37,780,000 or $271.00/sf of building area. This petition is for one parcel only. The property is located at 4601 9th Street North, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at 2020-00425 Page 2 of 11 about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 111 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, subject exhibits, with interior and exterior photographs of the subject, aerials and site maps, regional and neighborhood market analysis, description of the site and improvements, market analysis, highest and best use analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. PAO provided general assumption and limiting conditions, the deed with the legal description, impact fees, recent building permits on the subject, description sheets of each land and improved sales with photographs, market support for cap rates and the property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO indicated that the subject is located on a busy commercial street also known as US-41. The traffic count along 9th Street North at the subject is approximately 41,500 vehicles/day. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2016 to January 2020. The land sales range in size from 148,104-sf to 2,275,977-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 13,500 to 61,500 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $8.88 to $39.21/sf. The mean of all the sales is $23.32/sf and the median is $21.97/ sf. PAO indicated the surrounding area of the subject is all built-up and there is a scarcity of vacant land sales, in the area of the subject. PAO indicated sale # 3 is the closest to the subject, and similar in size, however the location is inferior. At the time of sale, the site was improved with a grocery store, which formed part of a larger shopping center with improved outparcels. This site is slated to be improved with an apartment complex and sold for $34.82/sf of land size. Sale # 5 is located north of the subject, in an inferior location, the site is smaller than the subject and is slated to be improved with an auto dealership. PAO considered the superior location of the subject, and size, the high traffic count and reconciled a value at $38.00/sf x 365,468-sf or $13,890,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $5,624,509 plus impact fees estimated at $1,295,000 plus the land value estimated at $13,890,000 for a total cost of $20,810,000 or $272/sf rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 15 sales of properties in 2020-00425 Page 3 of 11 Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from May 2017 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 46,400-sf to 175,504-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 4.18 acres to 21.87 acres with a land to building ratio ranging from 9% to 32%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 21%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2016. The sales range from $79.00 to $402.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $207.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $191.00/sf of building area including land. The sales in Collier County range from $154.00 to $402.00/sf with a mean of $259.00 and a median of $239.00/sf. PAO indicated the sale of the subject in 2014 and again in 2018 equates to a straight-line annual increase of approximately 6%. PAO mentioned that the subject has an anchor tenant (Publix) and that the retail center, located just south of the subject, that sold in conjunction with the subject, in June 2018, does not have an anchor tenant, only in-line tenants. PAO indicated that a center with an anchor tenant is typically worth more than one without. The sale of the subject in June 2018 equates to $271.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $250.00/sf of building area including land or $19,101,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rents in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties of community, neighborhood, freestanding and power centers, with anchor tenants. The building sizes range from 21,000-sf to 62,000-sf; the rents range from $5.00 to $19.33/sf with a mean of $11.77/sf and a median of $11.02/sf on a gross basis, (where the owner pays the majority of the expenses). PAO estimated a gross rent for the anchor space at $13.00/sf gross on 40,120-sf or $521,560. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, for junior anchor space in neighborhood, community and strip centers; the unit sizes range from 7,000-sf to 21,000- sf; the rents range from $9.61 to $26.05/sf with a mean of $15.54/sf and a median of $15.60/sf on a gross basis. PAO estimated a gross rent for the junior anchor tenants at $18.00/sf gross on 13,000-sf or $234,000. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, for In-Line space in neighborhood and community centers with an anchor tenant; the unit sizes range from 840-sf to 10,000-sf; the rents range from $25.80 to $69.50/sf with a mean of $39.90/sf and a median of $38.95/sf on a gross basis. PAO estimated a gross rent for the junior anchor tenants at $38.00/sf gross on 23,283-sf or $884,754. PAO estimated a total Gross rent (includes all common area maintenance (CAM) for the subject of $1,640,314 or $21.47/sf average. PAO indicated that some of the leases at the subject, may have to pay additional rent based on a percentage of the sales, over a certain amount of sales amount. PAO indicated any additional rent paid, based on percentage of sales was not provided to PAO or included in their analysis. PAO provided vacancy and collection loss support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 4.6% to 6.90% with a 3-yr average of 6.00% and an average for 2020-00425 Page 4 of 11 2019 of 6.32%. PAO indicated the average occupancy at the subject is 97%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy and collection loss of 5% or $82,016. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 15 commercial strip, neighborhood and community centers; the centers range in size from 17,000-sf to 245,000-sf with a mean of 62,357-sf and a median of 44,500-sf. The effective gross income (EGI) for these centers ranges from $9.44/sf to $32.26/sf with a mean of $18.51 to $17.09/sf, operating expenses range from $1.83/sf to $7.73/sf with a mean of $5.01/sf to $5.45/sf. The operating expense ratio ranges from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% and a median of 27.2%; expenses have been adjusted to exclude real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. The operating income ranges from $7.44 to $29.14/sf; the operating expenses range from $2.44/sf to $9.40/sf. PAO used an expense ratio of 20% of effective gross income (EGI) or $311,660 or $4.08/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,246,639.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 9 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 5.8% to 7.96% with a mean of 6.46% and a median of 6.46% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.26-$26.01/sf). PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 4.50% to 10.00% with an average of 6.86%. PAO used a cap rate of 5.75% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 6.95%. The NOI of $1,246,639.00 capitalized at 6.95% indicates a value of $17,937,000.00 or $235.00/sf rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $17,132,146. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). 2020-00425 Page 5 of 11 The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. 2020-00425 Page 6 of 11 The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 68-page. The report consists a cover letter, table of contents, property summary and salient facts with opinion of value, property record card, photos, location maps, aerials of subject. PET included the Income Analysis using actual rents at the subject and an Income Analysis using market rents; PET provided the income statement for the year 2019, and current rent roll for the subject. PET included market rents in chart form, for large spaces, mid-size space and inline spaces; with detail sheets on each rent comparable, with photos; PET provided market support, from National Surveys, for cap rates, asking rents and vacancies. PET included various articles on Institutional vs Non-institutional grade real estate, valuation issues, information on tenant allowances, replacement and reserves, management and leasing fees, retail unit of comparison for types of income producing properties. PET included FS-193.011 and 194.034, property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01, and form DR-493. PET included improved sales in chart form, with property record card and detail sheets on each sale with photos. PET developed the Sales Comparison and the Income Approach. The Cost Approach was not developed. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach using actual income and expenses at the subject. The total potential revenue, includes all revenues and includes real estate taxes and CAM, is $1,473,589. No vacancy and collection loss was deducted. Total expenses of $408,248 or 28% of income or $5.40/sf were deducted. The NOI is estimated at $1,065,341. The NOI is capitalized at a cap rate of 5.8% with an added mill rate of 1.015% for a total cap rate of 6.82%; the indicated value is $15,631,952. The cost of sales at 15% was deducted for a just value of $13,290,000 or $175.71/sf. PET developed the Income Approach based on market rents. PET provided 6 rents in Collier and Lee Counties located in community and neighborhood centers. The unit sizes range from 16,000-sf to 55,000-sf and were built from 1984 to 2016; the rents range 2020-00425 Page 7 of 11 from $10.00 to $14.35/sf triple net. PET provided one rent in Collier County, of a Hobby Lobby lease with 55,000-sf; the starting rent was $10.00/sf; the lease was signed in 2016. The remaining rents are located in Lee County in inferior locations. PET estimated a gross rent for the anchor space at $12.00/sf triple net, and added a $1.10/sf CAM on 40,120-sf for a total rent of $525,572. PET provided 8 rent comparables, in Naples and Collier County, for mid-size space in neighborhood, community and strip centers; the unit sizes range from 3,600-sf to 9,200- sf and were built from 1985 to 2006; the rents range from $16.00 to $28.17/sf with a mean of $21.70/sf and a median of $22.00/sf on a triple net basis. Two of the rent comparables are located across the street from the subject and range in space size from 3,600-sf to 5,000-sf; with rents from $22.00 to $28.17/sf triple net (PET did not provide the start date for these leases). The remaining rents are not located along 9th Street South (US-41), these rents range from $16.00 to $25.00/sf triple net. PET estimated a gross rent for the mid-size tenants on a triple net basis at $15.00/sf for 13,000-sf; the rent was estimated at $22.00/sf triple net for 5,000-sf; the rent was estimated at $22.00/sf triple net for 3,600-sf. PET added a CAM of $6.00/sf to all the mid-size space. The total rent is $513,800. PET provided 9 rent comparables, in Naples and Collier County, for In-Line space in neighborhood and community centers; the unit sizes range from 1,000-sf to 1,776-sf, and were built from 1983 to 2004; the rents range from $16.00 to $42.00/sf with an average of $25.50/sf and a median of $26.29/sf on a triple net basis. Two of the rent comparables are located across the street from the subject and range in space size from 1,000-sf to 1,278-sf; with rents from $25.50/sf to $26.00/sf triple net (PET did not provide the start date for these leases). One other rent is located on US-41, north of the subject; this space has 1,200-sf with a triple net rent of $42.00/sf. The remaining rents are not located along US-41 and range from $16.00 to $30.00/sf triple net. PET estimated a gross rent for the inline space at $30.00/sf triple net on 13,916-sf and added a CAM of $6.00/sf for a gross rent of $500,976. PET estimated a total Gross rent (includes all common area maintenance (CAM) for the subject of $1,540,348 or $20.37/sf average. PET provided a national survey, Viewpoint, which indicates vacancies for retail space in the range of 6.8% to 7.3%; the vacancy at the subject is 3%. PET estimated a vacancy and collection loss of 7% or $107,824. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $1,432,524. PET estimated the operating expenses, including replacement and reserves at 28% of EGI or $397,089 or $5.25/sf. The NOI is estimated at $1,035,435 or $13.69/sf. PAO’s NOI is estimated at $16.32/sf 2020-00425 Page 8 of 11 PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, for the year 2019 of neighborhood centers. The surveys indicate cap rates; Viewpoint (6.8%-7.3%) , CBRE, class C , Tier II (7%-11% and Class B, 5.5% -10%), RERC Tier II (6.3%-10%), National strip Centers (4.5%-10%), Institutional Grade vs Non-Institutional grade 5.88% vs 7%. PET used a cap rate of 5.8% and added a mill rate of 1.015% for a total cap rate of 6.82%. The NOI of $1,035,435.00 capitalized at 6.82% indicates a value of $15,193,131, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $12,910,000 or $170.69/sf. PET presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 2 sales in Naples. The properties sold from in December 2017 to April 2020. The building sizes range from 72,197-sf to 126,895-sf; land size ranges from 13.74 acres to 14.20 acres. The properties were built from 1993-2002. PET made no adjustments; the properties sold in the range of $201.00 to $231.00/sf and after a deduction of 15% for cost of sales the range is $171.00 to $196.00/sf with an average and median of $184.00/sf. PET estimated a value of $185.00/sf including COS or $13,990,000. PET’s reconciled value conclusion $12,910,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated that the Fee Simple Interest is being sought for taxation purposes and not the Leased Fee Estate, which PET submitted as part of their evidence. PAO mentioned PET submitted 2 improved sales only, when an abundance of sales, of retail centers occurred in year 2019; PAO indicated that their improved sales in Collier County only, average $258.00/sf. PET failed to mention the sale of the subject in June 2018. PAO indicated they placed most emphasis on the sale of the subject at $271.00/sf of building area, which included the center to the south of the subject, however, PAO indicated they are valuing the center to the north only and not allocating a value to the subject from the sale, PAO indicated they recognize the difference. PAO mentioned their anchor space rent and PET’s anchor rent are similar. PAO indicated PET’s rent for the mid-size spaced and inline space have inferior locations as compared to the subject and most centers have no anchor tenants. PAO indicated PET’s rents for these spaces are on the low end. PAO also mentioned they did not include additional rent in their analysis and that PET has about $81,000 in additional rent. PAO provided a land value for the subject and indicated that this value provides a good locational influence that commends a higher rent and a higher occupancy. PAO indicated the occupancy at the subject is 97%, which reflects well on the good location and condition of the center. As rebuttal PET indicated their improved sales reflect the age of the subject, which was built in 1986. PET indicated PAO’s improved sales are all newer centers and command a higher value/sf. PET indicated that PAO’s evidence, on averages, for the vacancy rate, 2020-00425 Page 9 of 11 operating expense ratios and cap rates all reflect higher numbers than PAO used in their analysis; and if the averages were used by PAO, the value would be lower. PET indicated that PAO did not look at the recent leases, at the subject, in their analysis. PET indicated the operating expenses at the subject are $5.02/sf or 28% or EGI, PAO used 20% of EGI or $4.08/sf, which is low. PET indicated that PAO’s cap rates derived from the sales in Collier County average 6.48% and PET used 5.75%. PET indicated the highest and best use of PAO’s land sales are different than the retail use of the subject and are not reflective of the value for a 1986 retail center that is at the end of its useful life. PET indicated no improvements were made to the subject since it was built. As further rebuttal, PAO indicated the average of 6 sales in Collier county was $258.00/ sf of building area in 2019. PAO indicated the cap rate for the subject sale, in 2018, was 5.7% and that the cap rate at the subject should be on the low end to reflect the good location and high occupancy. PAO indicated the averages for vacancy, operating expenses and cap rates are higher, however, the subject location is superior with a high traffic count, and is better than average; also, the center does not suffer from functional obsolescence. PAO indicated that improvements have been made to the center based on the building permits issued over the years. PAO indicated that the details of the subject need to be observed, and noted that, the subject is superior than the averages mentioned, by PET, for vacancies, operating expenses and cap rates. Also, PAO indicated the recent leases at the subject were signed in in the year 2017 and 2018 and are not considered recent leases. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO provided better support for the Sales Comparison Approach by providing a number of sales including the sale of the subject in June 2018. PAO and PET have similar gross income, with PAO at $21.47/sf and PET at $20.37/sf. The difference is in the allocation of the amount of space attributed for the inline space and junior tenants, PET used a smaller amount of square footage for inline space at a lower rent. PAO’s expenses are lower than PET’s, however PAO did not include reserves. PAO reconciled the value based on the Sales Comparison and the Income Approach at a value of $18,870,000 including cost of sales. PAO placed great emphasis on the sale of the subject in June 2018 at $271.00/sf, property values have increased since the time of sale, the subject center is 97% occupied and is in a good location. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00425: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a 2020-00425 Page 10 of 11 preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00425 Page 11 of 11 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00439 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00439 14045240002 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 854 1ST AVE N NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 215,471.00 193,390.00 193,390.00 151,932.00 151,932.00 151,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 151,932.00 151,932.00 151,932.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/03/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/07/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00439: This was a telephone hearing for the Petitioner (PET, Mr. John McDonald), but the PAO reps (Mr. Redding, Ms. Blaje, & Ms. Molina) were in the hearing room (but did not need to testify). The PET did not submit any evidence in advance of the hearing; thus, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. In testimony, the PET indicated he had exhausted his administrative remedies and had nothing to offer to refute the PAO’s just value. Therefore, the PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00439: 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. 2020-00439 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00440 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00440 19013440004 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 852 1ST AVE S NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 2,003,440.00 2,003,440.00 2,003,440.00 1,463,358.00 1,463,358.00 1,463,358.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,463,358.00 1,463,358.00 1,463,358.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/03/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/07/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00440: This was a telephone hearing for the Petitioner (PET, Mr. John McDonald), but the PAO reps (Mr. Redding, Ms. Blaje, & Ms. Molina) were in the hearing room (but did not need to testify). The PET did not submit any evidence in advance of the hearing; thus, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. In testimony, the PET indicated he had exhausted his administrative remedies and had nothing to offer to refute the PAO’s just value. Therefore, the PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00440: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser 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. 2020-00440 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00441 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00441 14045200000 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 97 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 1,725,014.00 1,640,454.00 1,640,454.00 1,482,358.00 1,482,358.00 1,482,358.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,482,358.00 1,482,358.00 1,482,358.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/03/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/07/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00441: This was a telephone hearing for the Petitioner (PET, Mr. John McDonald), but the PAO reps (Mr. Redding, Ms. Blaje, & Ms. Molina) were in the hearing room (but did not need to testify). The PET did not submit any evidence in advance of the hearing; thus, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. In testimony, the PET indicated he had exhausted his administrative remedies and had nothing to offer to refute the PAO’s just value. Therefore, the PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00441: 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. 2020-00441 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00443 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00443 14045280004 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 848 1ST AVE N NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 3,849,723.00 3,849,723.00 3,849,723.00 3,631,818.00 3,631,818.00 3,631,818.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,631,818.00 3,631,818.00 3,631,818.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/06/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00443: This was a telephone hearing for the Petitioner (PET, Mr. John McDonald), but the PAO reps (Mr. Redding, Ms. Blaje, & Ms. Molina) were in the hearing room (but did not need to testify). The PET did not submit any evidence in advance of the hearing; thus, the PAO was not required to submit any evidence. In testimony, the PET indicated he had exhausted his administrative remedies and had nothing to offer to refute the PAO’s just value. Therefore, the PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00443: 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. 2020-00443 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00446 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00446: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Don Wegner & Ms. Marie Cannan. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Jonathan McDonald (Property Tax Professionals). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 3-bed/2-bath residential unit in the Bayfront Condominium built in 2000. This condominium is part of a mixed use development with residences situated above commercial/entertainment space. There is also an adjacent marina, which is not a part of the subject’s condominium. The subject’s address is 450 Bayfront Place, unit 4309 in Naples. The adjusted building area is 1,796. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold recently on March 6, 2020, (after the assessment date) for $603,000. The 2020 just value of $640,000 exceeds that recent sales price. The 2019 just value of the subject was also $640,000. Other prior sales of the subject include $520,000 (5/2014), $500,000 (2/2010), & $584,000 (10/2005). PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to support the subject’s contested just value of $640,600, or $357/SF of building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide the deed for the 3/2020 sale of the subject, roster of Bayfront Condo sales (from 2019 & early 2020), aerial photo, various photos/renderings of the subject’s development/common areas, amenities/ adjacent marina, subject condo’s site plan, subject’s floor plan, unit number layout per floor, floor plans (and unit location on aerials) for the sale comps, subject’s MLS listing (for $644,000) with subject interior/view photos, & multiple MLS sales brochures for the sales. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 5 sales from 2019, but Sale #1 is a prime top floor corner unit and the highest sale at $1.185M, so it is disregarded. The remaining 4 sales range in price from $580k-$705K, but all are slightly smaller than the subject & only one of the sales (#4 for $645,000) is a 3/2 like the subject. The PAO also includes a separate chart of early 2020 sales of 3/2 units that were listed on the 1/1/2020 assessment date. Sale #6 (same size as subject) sold for $795K ($443/SF), Sale #7 (same size as subject) sold for $783,000 ($436/SF), and slightly larger 3/2 Sale #8 (also used by the PET) sold for $750,000 ($412/SF). Sale #8 went to contract in November 2019. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 9 pages of evidence consisting of a cover letter, Collier County’s DR-493 for 2020, the subject’s tax roll summary from the PAO’s web site, a roster of 9 sales from 2019 & early 2020 in the subject’s development (including the subject’s sale). That roster of sales indicates an average sales price of $336/SF (after making a 15% COS deduction). There are no adjustments applied for size, view, or any other factors. The PET is requesting a 15% COS reduction to the March 2020 purchase price of $603,000. Thus, the PET requests 85% X $603,000 = $512,550. The PET also provides a letter from the law firm of Phipps & Howell to a representative in the Florida House of Representatives discussing the COS position held 2020-00446 Page 2 of 4 by the PAO’s attorney (Mr. Wood). That letter is critical of Mr. Wood’s position seeking to deny the COS deduction in VAB proceedings. RULING: At issue in this hearing is really the topic of ‘timing’ and not as much the application of the 15% COS. The sale of the subject was well AFTER 1/1/2020, not before 1/1/2020. The PAO is not supposed to ‘chase sales’ after the assessment date, then retroactively apply them to the prior year’s assessment, which is what the PET is doing in this case. The PAO does a very good job of presenting the details, floor plans, view orientations, and location of each sale within the development. I did review that information and it does appear that the new owner of the subject did in fact got a ‘good deal’ by purchasing the subject for $603,000. In the subject’s MLS as presented in the PAO’s evidence, the subject was “priced far under Market Value”. That did appear to be the case when the subject was listed for $644,900. A full price offering would not necessarily been unusual at that price, had it remained on the market & not purchased by this owner. One very good piece of evidence is unit #4509 (directly above the subject with the same floor plan) that sold for $795,000 ($443/SF) in 4/2021, which was listed in February 2019. Another very good sale indicator is PAO’s Sale #2 (a smaller 2/2 with 1,518 SF that closed for $705,000 in March 2019). It is on the subject’s same floor in the same building and just 4 units away from the subject. It appears the subject sold with significant seller motivations that were not disclosed at this hearing. After a careful review of all of the data it does appear the PAO’s assessment is well within reason & strongly supported by sales during 2019, as well as sales that closed in early 2020 that were listed in 2019. The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00446: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or 2020-00446 Page 3 of 4 (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00446 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00450 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00450: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Don Wegner & Ms. Marie Cannan. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. Jonathan McDonald (Property Tax Professionals). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 2-bed/2-bath residential unit in the Devon Court Condominium built in 1983. This condominium has a total of 8 units. The subject’s address is 525 10th Avenue South #A200 in Naples. The adjusted building area is 1,640. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject recently on February 27, 2020, (after the assessment date) for $630,000. The 2020 just value of $665,000 exceeds that recent sales price. The 2019 just value of the subject was also $714,200; thus, the PAO dropped the subject’s 2020 assessment by 6.9% from 2019. It is important to note that the subject was not listed (for $699,000) until 1/9/2020, which is 8 days after the assessment date. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to support the subject’s contested just value of $665,000, or $405/SF of building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide the deed for the 2/2020 sale of the subject, roster of 9 comparable 2019 sales, aerial photo/map of the subject & comps, subject’s MLS listing (for $699,000) with subject interior/view photos, close-in aerial photo, various ground-level photos, site plan showing 2 buildings in the subject’s development/common areas, subject units’ floor plan, and site plans/floor plans for the sale comps. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 9 sales from 2019. Sale #1 sold for $720,000 & it is the only sale within the subject’s small development and it has the same size and bed/bath count as the subject. Obviously, this makes it the best comparable sale available. Applying a 15% COS to that transaction results in a just value of $612,000 for the subject. Sales 2-7 (i.e. 6 sales) are distributed among 4 different condo complexes & each of those sales had units smaller than the subject, yet sold for more than sale #1 at $720,000. Sales 8 & 9 are significantly smaller units than the subject and they sold for $690K & $685K, respectively. After reviewing all the sales, Sale #1 remains the best indicator of value leading up to the assessment date, given it has the same number of square feet, same bed/bath count, and it also closed prior to the assessment date. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 10 pages of evidence consisting of a cover letter, Collier County’s DR-493 for 2020, the subject’s tax roll summary from the PAO’s web site, & the subject’s closing statement for the February 27, 2020 sale. The PET also provides a letter from the law firm of Phipps & Howell to a representative in the Florida House of Representatives discussing the COS position held by the PAO’s attorney (Mr. Wood). That letter is critical of Mr. Wood’s position seeking to deny the COS deduction in VAB proceedings. The PET is requesting a 15% COS reduction to the February 2020 purchase price of $630,000. Thus, the PET requests 85% X $630,000 = 2020-00450 Page 2 of 4 $535,500. RULING: All of the evidence submitted was is admissible & credible. At issue in this hearing is really the topic of ‘timing’ and not as much the application of the 15% COS. Both the listing & sale of the subject were AFTER the 1/1/2020 assessment date; thus, those pieces of information are irrelevant. Neither was before 1/1/2020. The PAO is not supposed to ‘chase sales’ after the assessment date, then retroactively apply them to the prior year’s assessment, which is exactly what the PET is doing in this case. I give NO WEIGHT or significance to the subject’s list price or subsequent sales price, as that information would not have been available on the assessment date [thus is irrelevant]. Data that was known on the assessment date has to do with Sale #1 within the subject’s development. Sale #1 sold for $720,000 & it is the only sale within the subject’s small development during 2019 and it has the same size and bed/bath count as the subject. It is the best comparable sale available. Applying a 15% COS to that transaction results in a just value of $612,000 for the subject. PAO’s Sale #1 should be given primary weight and it warrants a reduction to the contested just value of $665,000. Thus, it is recommended the PAO’s assessment be reduced to $612,000. If there is any further reduction associated with the February 2020 sale of the subject, it should apply to the 2021 assessment (not the 2020 assessment). Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00450: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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 2020-00450 Page 3 of 4 accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2020-00450 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00452 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00452 12781400001 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 365 HAWSERLN NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 6,778,755.00 6,778,755.00 6,778,755.00 6,778,755.00 6,778,755.00 6,778,755.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,778,755.00 6,778,755.00 6,778,755.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/26/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/26/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00452: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert and Karen Nowak. The hearing was opened and all parties were sworn in for the hearing. The hearing was held virtual as agreed upon by both the PAO and PET. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $6,778,755. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 365 Hauser Ln. Marco Island. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PET indicated that the subject sold in 2019 for $6,900,000. PET requested a cost of sale reduction and provided no actual market data evidence to support a reduction. The PAO provided market data to support the Just Value and is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00452: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 2020-00452 Page 2 of 3 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00452 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00537 Page 1 of 9 Collier ✔ 2020-00537 00154560108 TEDDYS LAND JOINT VENTURE LLC, SMYR 13560 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34110✔ ✔ 3,038,716.00 3,038,716.00 3,038,716.00 3,038,716.00 3,038,716.00 3,038,716.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,038,716.00 3,038,716.00 3,038,716.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/21/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00537: This was a telephonic hearing. Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. On the telephone, the Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. Donald Bennett, agent for PET. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $3,038,716. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C-average, four-unit, retail strip center. The building area is 17,628-sf. the land size is 81,457-sf or 1.869 acres. The building was built in 1999. The property is located at 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 88 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials and site 2020-00537 Page 2 of 9 maps, and sketch of the property-site plan and building sketches. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and Income Approach. The addenda contains the deed with the legal description, photographs and details of the comparable sales, supporting income data, impact fees, support for capitalization rates (cap rate), and the subject property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 9 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood and Collier County. The land sales occurred from July 2014 to March 2019. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 339,768-sf; the unadjusted sales, ranges from $21.67/sf to $36.88/sf. The mean of all the sales is $30.07/ sf and the median is $30.38/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $30.00/sf x 81,457-sf or $2,444,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost, with paving, is estimated at $1,377,007, impact fees at $237,563, and the land value is estimated at $2,444,000 for a total cost of $4,059,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 12 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2015 to August 2019. The sales range in building size from 4,800-sf to 47,660-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 16,065-sf to 326,700-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 14.6% to 38.9%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 21.6%. The buildings were built from 1973 to 2004. The sales range from $117.00 to $267.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $204.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $218.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $210.00/sf of building area including land or $3,702,000 rounded. PAO presents the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, that range in size from 675-sf to 6,983-sf with a mean of 2,232-sf and a median of 1,350-sf; the rents range from $9.29 to $36.18/sf with a mean of $21.27/sf and a median of $20.29/sf on a triple net basis and $16.31 to $36.18/sf with a mean of $25.86/ sf and a median of $25.88/sf on a gross basis, (where the owner pays most of the expenses). PAO provided comparable listings of rents in Naples that range in size from 675-sf to 12,800-sf with a mean of 4,033-sf and a median of 3,151-sf; the rents range from $14.00 to $37.00/sf with a mean of $22.00/sf and a median of $20.00/sf on a triple net basis and $19.75 to $42.07/sf with a mean of $28.46/sf and a median of $27.73/sf on a gross basis, 2020-00537 Page 3 of 9 (where the owner pays most of the expenses). PAO estimated a gross rent of $20.00/sf for a gross rent of $352,560. PAO provided vacancy support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 3.50% to 6.00% with a 3-yr average of 4.43% and an average for 2019 of 4.95%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy rate of 5% or $17,628. The effective gross income is $334,932. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 16 multi-tenant centers and the operating expense ratios range from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.5% and a median of 29.0%; the expense ratio does not include real estate taxes. PAO provided the operating expenses of 6 single tenant retail stores in Naples; the operating expense ratios range from 15.9% to 33.00% with a mean of 24.7% and a median of 26.1%, excluding real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $83,733. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $251,199. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 12 sales of retail properties located in Collier County. The cap rates range from 5.83% to 7.50% with a mean of 6.61% and a median of 6.39% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $15.48-$37.33/sf). PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper and RERC for the 4th Q 2019. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.53% to 9.67% with an average of 7.02%. The cap rate developed by the Band of Investment is indicated at 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.40% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.60%. The NOI of $251,199.00 capitalized at 7.60% indicates a value of $3,305,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $3,038,716. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. 2020-00537 Page 4 of 9 See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current 2020-00537 Page 5 of 9 capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 108-pages which consisted of an appraisal report prepared by Calusa Appraisals with a value as of January 1, 2020. The appraisal contains definitions of value estimated, interest valued, marketing and exposure time, regional and market area analysis with location maps, property description, subject photos, building sketch, improvement analysis, highest and best use. PET developed the Income Approach and provided comparable rents in chart form with details of each comparable in the addenda; PET provided, in chart form, the actual rents at the subject. PET provided support for the cap rate from national surveys and included these surveys in the addenda. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach and included details of each sale in the addenda. PET provided a reconciliation of value, assumptions and limiting conditions, special conditions and assumptions, extraordinary assumptions and certification. The addenda contains, the property record card, deed, flood map, comparable rentals and improved sales, cap rate support, improved sales, qualifications and state license. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET presented the Income Approach. PAO provided 6 retail rent comparables, in Naples, that range in size from 9,744-sf-sf to 50,737-sf; the rents range from $6.00 to $22.23 on a triple net basis. The CAM ranges from $4.25/sf to $6.45/sf for a gross rent range of $10.65/sf to $28.68/sf. PET estimated the gross income based on the actual rents at the subject. The four units at the subject range in size from 2,248-sf to 6,300-sf for a total net area of 17,553-sf. The actual rents at the subject range from $8.14/sf to $21.93/sf. The leases expire from March 2021 to March 2023. The total income for the subject based on the actual rents is $233,770 of $13.32/sf on a triple net basis. The CAM ranges from $4.30/sf to $5.02/sf with an average of $5.02/sf. PET added the CAM of $5.02/sf for a total gross income of $321,905 or $18.34/sf 2020-00537 Page 6 of 9 The vacancy at the comparable rents above ranges from 0% to 23%. PET estimated a vacancy of 6% or $19,314. PET used the actual expenses at the subject and included the real estate taxes, and insurance at $47,471, the variable expenses are $83,078, PET included capital reserves at $4,539 for a total expense of $135,087 or $7.70/sf. The NOI is $167,503. PET provided support for the cap rate, from sales of improved retail properties in Naples. PET included 5 sales that indicate a cap rate range of 7.05% to 8.48% with an average of 7.47%. RERC, national survey, for 2019, indicates a cap rate range from 6% to 10.5%, with an average of 7.4%, for community retail centers. PET estimated a cap rate of 7.5%. The NOI of $167,503.00 capitalized at 7.50% indicates a value of $2,230,000 rounded. PET provided the Sales Comparison Approach and included 5 sales of properties in Collier County. The sales occurred from September 2018 to August 2019. The sales range in building size from 12,000-sf to 48,831-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 1 acre to 6.67 acres. The buildings were built from 1975 to 2007. PET adjusted the sales for market conditions, location, building and land size and building quality. The adjusted sales range from $90.02 to $213.87/sf of building area including land, with an average of $145.29/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $145.00/sf of building area including land or $2,550,000 rounded. PET reconciled a value of $2,350,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET appraised the property on a Leased Fee basis, using the actual rents at the subject, and not Fee Simple interest, as required for the purposes of tax assessment. PAO mentioned that the actual rents at the subject are low for the area. PAO mentioned they did not receive the actual rents for the subject in a timely manner before the hearing. PAO verbally indicted that they researched the assessment of similar properties in the subject neighborhood and noted that the subject is being fairly assessed with similar properties in the area, and is not over assessed. PAO mentioned that some of PET’s sales are located in inferior neighborhoods, one sale is a condominium and another sale had a high vacancy. PET indicated the building is old and the spaces are larger than normal, with narrow frontage and a long depth. The property is not located at a traffic light and the traffic count is low at this location. Most emphasis was placed on the income approach, from actual rents being generated at the subject. PET indicated the property is assessed at approximately 50% higher than the value of the income. 2020-00537 Page 7 of 9 PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET estimated a Leased Fee estate, based on the actual rents at the subject. PET included the real estate taxes as an expense and PET’s cap rate is high for a non-loaded cap rate. The rents being achieved at the subject are substantially below market with one tenant paying $8.14/sf triple net for 4,543-sf. Some of PET’s sales are not comparable in location, PAO provided ample sales of similar properties in the immediate area of the subject. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00537: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and 2020-00537 Page 8 of 9 the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00537 Page 9 of 9 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00538 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00538: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI. & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (Realty Income Properties 18, LLC. & was represented by Paradigm Tax Group) did not attend the hearing & was also not on the telephone. However, Paradigm did send an email request to have their evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Family Dollar Store built in 2008. The subject’s address is 106 East Main Street in Immokalee. The adjusted building area is 9,100 SF situated upon a site of 50,540 SF (i.e. 1.16 acres) zoned C-5. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold (leased fee) in 2012 for $1,884,200. The 2020 assessment equates to 55.9% of that old/prior sales price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $1,053,045, or $115.72/SF of adjusted building area, or $20.84/SF of site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, possible witness list of PAO employees, aerial photographs, subject’s building sketch, exterior and interior photographs, location map, street location map, zoning map, regional & neighborhood market analysis, land sales summary grid, land sale location map, land sales aerials and brief details, Cost Approach exhibit, Sales Comparison summary grid, improved sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach exhibit, Income Approach exhibit, subject’s deed, comparable sales photographs, PwC Cap Rate Analysis (4th Qtr. 2019), RealtyRates.com Investor Survey (3rd Qtr. 2020), RERC Regional South Investment Criteria (4th Qtr. 2019), CoStar retail statistics for Collier County for 2019, & impact fee calculations. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated the building cost new at $742,535, site improvements at $48,265, indirect costs at $10,618, entrepreneurial profit at $89,553, less depreciation of $259,888 for a total Replacement Cost New (RCN - depreciation) of $631,083. The PAO provides good land back-up support from the Immokalee area by showing 6 land sales (with good back-up documentation). Given the slow/rural market area, the use of many older sales was unavoidable. A well-supported land value is estimated at $7.00/SF, plus $125,548 of impact fees for a total of $479,548 (which is 45.5% of the total just value). The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate by the PAO is $1,111,000 (before COS consideration). IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 9 sales from the Immokalee market area. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $81.63- $240.54/SF, and some of those sales are in Collier County. Four (4) of the sales are leased fee transactions. The five (5) fee simple sales are given greatest weight with $/SF indicators from those sales of $166.67, $206.25, $81.63, $98.32, and $122.04. Those indicators average $134.98 (without any appreciation applied). The PAO concludes $130/ SF X 9,100 SF = $1,183,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS 2020-00538 Page 2 of 5 consideration). IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $16/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of $98,280 for a value indication of $1,229,000, or $135.05/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches to a value of $1.2M. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted 38 pages of evidence via 4 Axia downloads. Evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provides a Cost Approach, Comparable Sales Approach, & an Income Approach in evidence. Lease comp details from CoStar are provided from different parts of Florida. Many are in rural locations. The Boulder Group Net Lease Dollar Store Report is provided for the 2nd quarter of 2020. The PET also presented lease comp details from Costar. In addition, the PET provided a chart of 19 Dollar-type stores around the State of Florida, most of which operate on NNN leases. The majority of those 19 rents tend to fall within the $7-$8/SF NNN range, yet 15 of the 19 rent comp leases were signed prior to February 2017. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $662,391, but the PET fails to provide market-oriented support for the land value. The PET uses the PAO’s allocated land value in the assessment, which is incorrect methodology for this hearing. The PET fails to also address indirect (soft) costs, entrepreneurial profit, and site improvements. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET’s Cost Approach estimate, but in my final ruling I will further address aspects of this Cost Approach that are useful. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $9.50/SF, 8.0% vacancy, 10.0% expenses (includes reserves), and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5% applied to the NOI of $69,306 for a value of $924,075 (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The 15-page portion of the PET’s overall evidence submittal has Collier County improved sales data from CoStar. According to the PAO, CoStar had incorrect details & information associated with quite a few of those sales presented by the PET. As an example, the PAO notes the sale of 217 N 15th Street (also PAO’s Sale #5) actually has 6,000 SF, while CoStar’s data indicates 7,286 SF. The PAO notes the property at 3375 Pine Ridge Road (Bldg. 400) was not actually a sale (3360 Pine Ridge actually sold). PET’s sale presented at 4201-15 Tamiami Trail East was apparently an auction sale of a multi-tenant property with a large vacant space. Apparently, the PET does not provide any specific point estimate of value for this approach, yet only provides various sales information (much of which is erroneous or not useful for the subject’s single-user retail store in a rural location). I give no weight to the PET’s improved sales presentation. RULING: The PET’s presentation is weak in many areas, yet it perhaps is useful by suggesting the PAO’s Income Approach is aggressive, given it is the highest approach presented by the PAO. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is inconclusive & given no weight. For this hearing, it appears the PAO does a good job with land value support and other inputs to the Cost Approach. Conversely, the PET’s Cost Approach is lacking a 2020-00538 Page 3 of 5 several components. It lacks entrepreneurial profit, site work, impact fees, and proper support for the land value. Given the subject is a very simplistic and relatively small property, I have isolated the PET’s missing components from the PAO’s Cost Approach & can add them as adjustments to the PET’s Cost Approach. Thus, indirect costs of $10,618 + entrepreneurial profit of $89,553 = $100,171, less 19% depreciation (used by the PET) of $19,302 = $81,139. This is added to the PET’s depreciated value of the improvements ($447,574) and then site work (from the PAO) of $48,265 is also added, resulting in a corrected PET Cost Approach of $1,056,526 (before COS). This compares favorably to the PAO’s Cost Approach estimate of $1,111,000 (before COS). Thus, when all the property factors are considered in the PET’s Cost Approach, it becomes a meaningful approach for ‘common ground’ with the PAO given the parties are in far less agreement with the other approaches. Another good thing about the Cost Approach is that it is very good at getting to the ‘fee simple’ value when there is good data available for the land estimate, as was the case. In conclusion, I give primary emphasis to the PAO’s Cost Approach ($1,111,000), less 15% COS, which equals $944,350. This results in a 10.3% ($108,695) reduction to the contested just value of $1,053,045. I also note that NONE of the PAO’s individual approaches [or the PAO’s reconciliation] support the contested just value after making the 15% COS deduction to any given approach. The weight & preponderance of evidence suggests the PAO’s contested just value of $1,053,045 is aggressive. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be reduced to $944,350, which is the PAO’s Cost Approach figure of $1,111,000, less 15% COS. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00538: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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 2020-00538 Page 4 of 5 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. 2020-00538 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00539 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00539: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI. & Ms. Liz Molina. The owner is Ocean Boulevard Partnership, as represented by Paradigm Tax Group (Petitioner, or “PET”). The PET did not attend the hearing & was also not on the telephone. However, Paradigm did send an email request to have their evidence considered at this hearing. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Family Dollar Store built in 2003. The subject’s address is 950 Immokalee Road in Naples. This location is at the Southeast corner of Tamiami Trail North and Immokalee Road. Basically, the subject is an outparcel of a shopping center; whereby, the building footprint takes up most of the site. The subject’s parking is technically off-site (i.e. within the grounds of the shopping center. The adjusted building area is 14,852 SF situated upon a site of 19,943 SF (i.e. 0.46 acres) zoned PUD. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in recent years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $1,556,914, or $104.83/SF of adjusted building area, or $78.07/SF of site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, possible witness list of PAO employees, aerial photographs, subject’s building sketch, exterior and interior photographs, location map, street location map, zoning map, regional & neighborhood market analysis, land sales summary grid, land sale location map, land sales aerials and brief details, Cost Approach exhibit, Sales Comparison summary grid, improved sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach exhibit, Income Approach exhibit, comparable sales photographs, PwC Cap Rate Analysis (4th Qtr. 2019), RealtyRates.com Investor Survey (3rd Qtr. 2020), RERC Regional South Investment Criteria (4th Qtr. 2019), CoStar retail statistics for Collier County for 2019, & impact fee calculations. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated the building cost new at $1,338,932, site improvements at $0 (zero due to large building footprint), indirect costs at $17,406, entrepreneurial profit at $158,571, less depreciation of $468,627 for a total Replacement Cost New (RCN - depreciation) of $1,046,282. The PAO provides 20 land sales (with good back-up documentation) with a mean of $29.92/SF & median of #$28.66/SF. In a situation like the subject’s (i.e. where the parking is provided off-site by the shopping center via cross-access & cross-parking agreements), the ‘building pad’ value is normally a lot higher than a normal site where there is a mix of building pad, parking, & sometimes on-site drainage. The PAO estimates land value at $35.00/SF ($698,000), plus $200,153 of impact fees for a total of $898,153 (which is 57.7% of the total just value). The land value + impact fees is then added to the depreciated value of the improvements resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate by the PAO of $1,944,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 11 sales 2020-00539 Page 2 of 5 from the Naples market area along the Tamiami Trail corridor. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $131-$636/SF, but I disregard the first two sales because they were restaurant-oriented buildings that often tend to be higher. of the remaining 9 sales, I then disregarded the 3 highest sales (all over $300/SF), because the subject’s building design & quality is more simplistic. The resulting average $/SF of building for the remining 6 sales is $187/SF. The PAO concludes to the low end of the sales range at $150/SF X 14,852 SF = $2,228,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $20/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 10.0%, expenses at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% to NOI of $200,502 for a value indication of $2,506,000, or $168.73/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches to a value of $2.2M. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted 38 pages of evidence via 4 Axia downloads. Evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET provides a Cost Approach, Comparable Sales Approach, & an Income Approach in evidence. Lease comp details from CoStar are provided from different parts of Florida. Many are in rural locations. The Boulder Group Net Lease Dollar Store Report is provided for the 2nd quarter of 2020. The PET also presented lease comp details from Costar. In addition, the PET provided a chart of 19 Dollar-type stores around the State of Florida, most of which operate on NNN leases. The majority of those 19 rents tend to fall within the $7-$8/SF NNN range, yet 15 of the 19 rent comp leases were signed prior to February 2017. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $1,100893, but the PET fails to provide market-oriented support for the land value. The PET uses the PAO’s allocated land value in the assessment, which is incorrect methodology for this hearing. The PET fails to also address indirect (soft) costs, entrepreneurial profit, and site improvements. Therefore, I give no weight to the PET’s Cost Approach estimate, but in my final ruling I will further address aspects of this Cost Approach that are useful. The PET includes an Income Approach for the subject based upon $9.00/SF, 8.0% vacancy, $16,010 expenses (includes reserves), and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5% applied to the NOI of $106,964 for a value of $1,426,188 (before any COS deduction). COMPARABLE SALES: The 15-page portion of the PET’s overall evidence submittal has Collier County improved sales data from CoStar. According to the PAO, CoStar had incorrect details & information associated with quite a few of those sales presented by the PET. As an example, the PAO notes the sale of 217 N 15th Street actually has 6,000 SF, while CoStar’s data indicates 7,286 SF. The PAO notes the property at 3375 Pine Ridge Road (Bldg. 400) was not actually a sale (3360 Pine Ridge actually sold). PET’s sale presented at 4201-15 Tamiami Trail East was apparently an auction sale of a multi- tenant property with a large vacant space. Apparently, the PET does not provide any specific point estimate of value for this approach, yet only provides various sales information (much of which is erroneous or not useful for the subject’s single-user retail 2020-00539 Page 3 of 5 store in a rural location). Therefore, I give no weight to the PET’s improved sales presentation. RULING: The PET’s presentation is weak in many areas. The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is inconclusive & given no weight. For this hearing, it appears the PAO does a good job with land value support and other inputs to the Cost Approach. Also, the PAO provides a large sample of improved sales that easily support the assessment. The PAO & PET differ considerably when it comes to the Income Approach, so I will set aside that approach & focus on what is somewhat closer to agreeable. As stated earlier, the PET’s Cost Approach is lacking a several components. It lacks entrepreneurial profit, site work, impact fees, and proper support for the land value. In this particular case, the PAO estimates site work at ‘zero’ given the parking, access, and drainage are all off-site (i.e. part of the adjacent shopping center’s space within cross-access areas). Given the subject is a very simplistic and relatively small property, I have isolated the PET’s missing components from the PAO’s Cost Approach & can add them as adjustments to the PET’s Cost Approach. Thus, indirect costs of $17,406 + entrepreneurial profit of $158,571 = $175,977, less 31% depreciation (used by the PET) of $54,553 = $121,424. This is added to the PET’s depreciated value of the improvements ($622,261) and PAO’s land value + impact fees, which total $898,153. Thus, the corrected PET Cost Approach becomes $1,641,838 (before COS). This compares somewhat favorably to the PAO’s Cost Approach estimate of $1,944,000 (before COS). Thus, when all the property factors are considered in the PET’s Cost Approach, it becomes a meaningful approach for ‘common ground’ with the PAO given the parties are in far less agreement with the other approaches. Another good thing about the Cost Approach is that it is very good at getting to the ‘fee simple’ value when there is good data available for the land estimate, as was the case. In conclusion, I give primary emphasis to the PAO’s Cost Approach ($1,944,000), less 15% COS, which equals $1,652,400. That figure supports the contested just value of $1,556,914. I also give the PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach weight, as it included ample sales of sufficient comparability when it comes to heavy traffic frontage. The weight & preponderance of evidence suggests the PAO’s contested just value of $1,556,914 is reasonable & should be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00539: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of 2020-00539 Page 4 of 5 the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 2020-00539 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00540 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00540 00236400005 CHARLES YOUNG C/O ALTUS GROUP US I 7801 AIRPORT RDN NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 9,530,456.00 9,530,456.00 9,530,456.00 9,530,456.00 9,530,456.00 9,530,456.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,530,456.00 9,530,456.00 9,530,456.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/26/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/27/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00540: The Petitioner (PET) failed to appear at the hearing. The PET failed to check the box on the petition for non-attendance to have their evidence considered in their absence. Therefore, the PET’s evidence was not considered. The property appraiser’s office (PAO) representatives were sworn in but did not need to testify. The PAO's just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00540: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00540 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00541 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00541 14450000701 CHARLES YOUNG C/O ALTUS GROUP US I 4805 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 15,858,026.00 15,858,026.00 15,858,026.00 15,127,441.00 15,127,441.00 15,127,441.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,127,441.00 15,127,441.00 15,127,441.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/26/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/27/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00541: The Petitioner (PET) failed to appear at the hearing. The PET failed to check the box on the petition for non-attendance yet to have their evidence considered in their absence. Therefore, the PET’s evidence was not considered. The property appraiser’s office (PAO) representatives were sworn in but did not need to testify. The PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00541: 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. 2020-00541 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00547 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00547: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert Sylviane. The hearing was opened and PET did not show or provide evidence for a hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $733,681. The TRIM value did change from $810,053. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing. Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition or evidence reviewed in their absence. Petitioner has not provided a good cause statement for failure to appear or for a request for a rescheduled hearing. 2020-00547 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00552 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00552: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John Silverfield, Esq. & Mr. Kevin Lindheim, MAI, SRA. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a detached single-family 2-story home with a pool & 3 and a half car garage. The subject was built in 2018. The subject’s address is 1160 Massey Street in a rural area of Naples. The subject’s location is south of Immokalee Road and east of Collier Boulevard. The subject has a base living area of 3,956 SF, and an adjusted building area of 6,825 SF. The subject has 5 bedrooms, 4 full bathrooms, and 2 half bathrooms. The zoning is A (rural agricultural). The land area is 5 acres with a rectangular shape. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no prior sales of the subject as improved, but the lot sold for $300,000 in March 2017. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach to support the subject’s contested just value of $2,094,427, or $306.88/SF of adjusted building area, or $529.43/SF of livable area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a cover page, evidence list, potential witness list of the PAO’s staff, summary of salient facts/conclusions, subject aerial photo, subject location/plat map, subject sketch, subject exterior photographs, pool photo, Cost Approach, land sales grid, comparable land sales map, (improved) Sales Comparison Approach grid of 4 sales, comparable sales photographs and sketches, & impact fee calculations. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO The PAO concludes land value at 5.00 AC. X $95,000 per acre for a total land value of $475,000. That land value was based upon two land sales not too far from the subject of 1.25 acres in 2018, and 2.00 acres in 2019. The PAO estimates the impact fees to be $31,804 plus site improvements at $40,000 and the total improvements to be $1,694,427. There is only 2% depreciation applied, given the home was built in 2018 and is almost new. The total of the two (land & building) components is $2,241,231. The PAO did not provide any building permit value information. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales from 2019. All 4 sales are located west of Logan Boulevard. In fact, sales 1 & 2 are also west of I-75. in close proximity to the subject. Before any adjustments, the sales ranged in price from $1.1M to $1.925M. Sale #4 is given less weight, since it is the low (outlier) sale, and also the smallest of the 4 comparable sales provided (in terms of adjusted area). The first three sales range in lot size from 2.39 to 2.5 acres. Sales with 5 acres of land (like the subject) apparently are less frequent in the market. Specifically, the unadjusted sales prices of sales 1-3 were $1,925,000, $1,875,000, & $1,800,000, respectively. The PAO applies adjustments for dissimilar conditions that result in fully adjusted indicators of $2,302,353, $1,903,604, & 2020-00552 Page 2 of 5 $2,115,506, respectively. The PAO concludes $2,164,000 via the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO established the presumption of correctness at the hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET requests a just value of $1,750,000, which is the appraised value as of December 31, 2020 by Mr. Kevin Lindheim, MAI, SRA. His appraisal is based upon his personal inspection of the property and inspection of the grounds. His appraisal also uses 6 closed sales. PET’s sale #5 is the PAO’s sale #3. The main difference in methodology is that the Mr. Lindheim’s report uses the ‘livable’ square feet as the primary unit of size comparison; whereas, the PAO uses the ‘adjusted’ building area. Most fee appraisers customarily do use the livable areas, then make separate/other adjustments for garages or other patio/porch spaces as may be necessary. Most county property appraisers will use the ‘adjusted’ area, which is a blend of livable and non-livable spaces (normally using factors). The fee appraiser’s Cost Approach value was $2,451,536, while the Sales Comparison Approach’s estimate was $1.75M (and given greater weight by Mr. Lindheim). The PET argues that there is a landscaping maintenance company immediately north of the subject that causes a negative influence upon the subject, due to excess noise during certain hours and also it is less attractive to look at from the subject. He makes a -10% adjustment to each sale for that condition. Mr. Lindheim’s Cost Approach estimate was $2.451,536, which is well above his Sales Comparison Approach (and higher than the PAO’s Cost Approach of $2,241,000). Apparently, the subject and some adjacent homes were built with a substantial amount of labor flown to Naples from outside the country. The true cost to build the subject likely exceeded Mr. Lindheim’s estimate, given the subcontractors were being paid a premium for their undivided attention during the construction process. At the hearing, I accepted MLS information from the PET for petitions 2020-552 & 2020-556. Most of the MLS data relates to improved sales used by the PET, yet both share the sale at 1705 Oakes Boulevard (PET’s Sale #5 and PAO’s Sale #3). PET’s sale #4 closed on February 24, 2020, which is after the assessment date. It untimely for consideration because the MLS data indicates the contract was executed January 29, 2021. RULING: The valuation of a property like the subject is very difficult because this owner’s home (and some of its family’s neighboring homes) are atypical for the immediate rural area. Different appraisal professionals can certainly differ in their analysis and adjustments applied. There are merits to some of the topics brought up by the PET, and also merits to some points brought up by the PAO. I do have certain observations, as follows: 1.The PET’s appraisal has unadjusted sales prices of $1,075,000, $1,200,000, $1,100,000, $957,000, $1,800,000, and $1,400,000. Thus, 4 of the 6 PET sales sold for less than half of the PET’s Cost Approach conclusion of $2.45M. 2.From a ‘buyer profile’ perspective, it begs the question as to whether a $957K-1.2M buyer of a home (as 4 of the 6 just mentioned) is the same type of buyer of a $1.9M - 2020-00552 Page 3 of 5 $2.45M home buyer. The latter buyer would require double the funds as the first. I do not think a typical buyer of a $1M home is necessarily the same as a typical buyer of a $2M home. They have different financial abilities and housing expectations. 3.The PET makes ‘gross’ adjustments to his 6 sales of 106.1%, 105.2%, 114.3%, 121.8%, 52.3%, and 105.5%. In other words, 5 of the 6 sales had gross adjustments in excess of their respective sales prices (i.e. gross adjustments of $1M more or less). 4. While I am not being critical of Mr. Lindheim’s various adjustments, the subject was built in 2018 & is almost new. Mr. Lindheim’s improved sale comps were built in 2006, 2006, 2006, 2008, 2015, and 2000, respectively. While significant age adjustments were applied, 5 of the 6 sales had ages of 10 years or more. 5. Based upon items 1 through 4 above, it really begs the question as to whether the PET’s sale comps provide a good reflection of current market activity for buyers seeking homes of the subject’s caliber near the $2M +/- price range. Also, PET’s Sale #4 went to contract & closed after the assessment date & it is not worthy of consideration in this hearing. 6. I would suggest PAO’s sales #1 - #3 are far more reasonable & reflect the same buyer profile for the subject because they sold within a range of $1.8M-$1.925M. Arguably, it would have been more desirable to have those 3 comps in close proximity to the subject; however, these were the sales the PAO could locate. 7. I give weight to the PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO’s Cost Approach, and the PET’s Cost Approach. Given the subject is almost new & there is very little depreciation, the Cost Approach does have its merits. I apply a 15% COS deduction to each, and then average the results for a final ruling amount of $1,943,000 (rounded). This results in a just value REDUCTION of $151,427; thus, the PET is given some relief at this hearing. PAO Sales Approach – 15% COS = $1,839,400 PAO Cost Approach – 15% = $1,904,850 PET Cost Approach – 15% COS = $2,083,806 Average: $1,943,000 (rounded) The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET and a reduction in the just value to $1,943,000 is recommended. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00552: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes 2020-00552 Page 4 of 5 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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. 2020-00552 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00555 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00555 34595002440 JSF USEPPA WAY CMPII LLC, PTA-JD #881 5304 USEPPAWAY NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 12,227,132.00 12,227,132.00 12,227,132.00 11,658,100.00 11,658,100.00 11,658,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,658,100.00 11,658,100.00 11,658,100.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00555: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. The petitioner (PET) was Mr. Vincent Bennett, from Property Tax Advisors LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $12,227,132. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in 2020-00555 Page 2 of 4 this case the Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $12,227,132. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence in a timely manner to the VAB and PET did not exchange evidence with PAO, when requested. PET indicated the subject petition was transferred from another agent (letter of authorization dated 10/1/20), however, the transferring agent neglected to provide Mr. Bennett with the transfer code to the program Axia, so that Mr. Bennett could upload the evidence for PAO to review. Instead, PET forwarded the evidence to the VAB. Consequently, PAO did not receive PET’s evidence. PET requested a good cause reschedule of the hearing and was denied by VAB attorney; VAB attorney stated that petitioner is well aware of the evidence exchange process and if PET is unable to upload the evidence, the evidence should be provided directly to PAO. At the hearing, PET provided evidence. PAO objected to the evidence stating that no evidence was exchanged when requested (PAO letter for exchange of evidence dated 9/17/20) (F.A.C. 12D-9.020(8)). Special Magistrate (SM) stated that based on PAO’s objection, PET’s evidence would not be admitted for consideration. PET requested the hearing continue so that PET could provide the evidence verbally; PAO objected to any verbal evidence since no evidence was exchanged by the parties. SM stated that since no evidence had been exchanged between PAO and PET, and PAO objected to PET’s verbal evidence, PET’s verbal evidence could not be admitted. PET stated that no statute exists on the admissibility of verbal evidence; PET requested direction from VAB counsel on the admissibility of verbal evidence. SM contacted VAB counsel and related the fact that PET had not exchanged evidence with PAO and that PET wanted to verbally submit the evidence. Counsel stated, that if PET did not submit the evidence prior to the VAB hearing, and if PAO objects to PET’s evidence being admitted on record, the VAB is required to refuse to allow PET to submit the evidence. (F. A. C. 12D-9.020(9)). 2020-00555 Page 3 of 4 PET requested the evidence packet be returned, since the evidence would not be admitted for consideration. No evidence was admitted into record for consideration. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00555: The Petitioner was present at the hearing, but the Petitioner had not previously submitted evidence. Therefore, 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. 2020-00555 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00556 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00556: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John Silverfield, Esq. & Mr. Kevin Lindheim, MAI, SRA. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject has a detached single-family 2- story home with 5 bedrooms, 4 full bathrooms, and 2 half bathrooms, a pool & 3 and a half car garage for the main house. The subject was built in 2018. The subject’s address is 1164 Massey Street in a rural area of Naples. The subject’s location is south of Immokalee Road and east of Collier Boulevard. The subject has a main house base living area of 3,956 SF, and an adjusted building area of 6,828 SF. There is also a guest house with a base living area of 2,054 SF, and 2,656 SF of adjusted area. The guest house also has its own pool. The zoning is A (rural agricultural). The land area is 5 acres with a rectangular site shape. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no prior sales of the subject as improved, but the lot sold for $300,000 in March 2017. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach to support the subject’s contested just value of $2,793,160, or $294.51/SF of adjusted building area [based upon a combined adjusted area for both structures of 9,484 SF]. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a cover page, evidence list, potential witness list of the PAO’s staff, summary of salient facts/conclusions, subject aerial photo, subject location/plat map, subject sketch, subject exterior photographs, pool photo, Cost Approach, land sales grid, comparable land sales map, (improved) Sales Comparison Approach grid of 4 sales, comparable sales photographs and sketches, & two sets of impact fee calculations (i.e. one for the main home and another for the guest house). IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO The PAO concludes land value at 5.00 AC. X $95,000 per acre for a total land value of $475,000. The land value was based upon two land sales not too far from the subject of 1.25 acres and 2.07 acres. The PAO estimates the combined impact fees (i.e. for both structures) of $60,689 plus site improvements at $55,000 and the total improvements to be $2,393,160. There is only 2% depreciation applied, given the home was built in 2018 and is almost new. The total of the two (land & building) components is $2,983,849. The PAO did not provide any building permit value information. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales from 2019. All 4 sales are located west of Logan Boulevard. In fact, sales 1 & 2 are also west of I-75. Sale #1 also has a guest house. Before any adjustments, the sales ranged in price from $1.1M to $1.925M. Sale #4 is given no weight, since it is the low (outlier) sale at $1.1M, and also the smallest of the 4 comparable sales provided (in terms of adjusted area). The first three sales range in lot size from 2.39 to 2.73 acres. Sales with 5 acres of land (like the subject) apparently are less frequent in the market. 2020-00556 Page 2 of 5 Specifically, the unadjusted sales prices of sales 1-3 were $1,500,000, $1,925,000, $1,800,000, respectively. The PAO applies adjustments for dissimilar conditions that result in fully adjusted indicators of $3,036,500, $3,001,086, & $2,814,239, respectively. The PAO concludes $313/adjusted SF X 8,484 SF = $2,968,000 via the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO established the presumption of correctness at the hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET requests a just value of $2,250,000, which is the appraised value as of December 31, 2020 by Mr. Kevin Lindheim, MAI, SRA. His appraisal is based upon his personal inspection of the property and inspection of the grounds. His appraisal also uses 6 closed sales. PET’s sale #5 is the PAO’s sale #3. The main difference in methodology is that the Mr. Lindheim’s report uses the ‘livable’ square feet as the primary unit of size comparison; whereas, the PAO uses the ‘adjusted’ building area. Most fee appraisers customarily do use the livable areas, then make separate/other adjustments for garages or other patio/porch spaces as may be necessary. Most county property appraisers will use the ‘adjusted’ area, which is a blend of livable and non-livable spaces (normally using factors). The fee appraiser’s Cost Approach value was $3,085,608, while the Sales Comparison Approach’s estimate was $2,250,000 (and given greater weight by Mr. Lindheim). The PET argues that there is a landscaping maintenance company immediately north of the subject that causes a negative influence upon the subject, due to excess noise during certain hours and also it is less attractive to look at from the subject. He makes a -10% adjustment to each sale for that condition. However, in his Cost Approach he makes a - $420,426 external obsolescence deduction (which does not appear to make sense, as external obsolescence should be divided between the land and the building). Mr. Lindheim’s Cost Approach estimate was $3,085,608, which is well above his Sales Comparison Approach (and higher than the PAO’s Cost Approach of $2,984,000). Apparently, the subject and some adjacent homes were built with a substantial amount of labor flown to Naples from outside the country. The true cost to build the subject likely exceeded Mr. Lindheim’s estimate, given the subcontractors were being paid a premium for their undivided attention during the construction process. At the hearing, I accepted MLS information from the PET for petitions 2020-552 & 2020-556. Most of the MLS data relates to improved sales used by the PET, yet both share the sale at 1705 Oakes Boulevard (PET’s Sale #5 and PAO’s Sale #3). PET’s sale #4 closed on February 24, 2020, which is after the assessment date. It is untimely for consideration because the MLS data indicates the contract was executed January 29, 2021. RULING: The valuation of a property like the subject is very difficult because this owner’s home (and some of the same family’s neighboring homes) are atypical for the immediate rural area. Different appraisal professionals can certainly differ in their analysis and adjustments applied. There are merits to some of the topics brought up by the PET, and also merits to some points brought up by the PAO. I do have certain observations, as 2020-00556 Page 3 of 5 follows: 1.The PET’s appraisal has unadjusted sales prices of $1,075,000, $1,200,000, $1,100,000, $975,000, $1,800,000, and $1,400,000. Thus, 4 of the 6 PET sales sold for far less than half of the PET’s Cost Approach conclusion of $3.086M. In fact, PET’s Sale #3 is less than a third of the PET’s Cost Approach. 2.From a ‘buyer profile’ perspective, it begs the question as to whether a $957K-1.2M buyer of a home (as 4 of the 6 just mentioned) is the same type of buyer of a $3M +/- home buyer. The latter buyer would require triple the funds as the first type of buyer. I do not think a typical buyer of a $1M home is necessarily the same as a typical buyer of a $3M home. They have different financial abilities and housing expectations. 3.The PET makes ‘gross’ adjustments to his 6 sales of 149.5%, 144.3%, 163.0%, 172.7%, 59.7%, and 135.1%. In other words, 5 of the 6 sales had gross adjustments in significantly in excess of their respective sales prices (i.e. gross adjustments of $1M or more). 4. While I am not being critical of Mr. Lindheim’s various adjustments, the subject was built in 2018 & is almost new. Mr. Lindheim’s improved sale comps were built in 2006, 2006, 2006, 2008, 2015, and 2000, respectively. While significant age adjustments were applied, 5 of the 6 sales had ages of 10 years or more while the subject is almost new. 5. Based upon items 1 through 4 above, it really begs the question as to whether the PET’s sale comps provide a good reflection of current market activity for buyers seeking homes of the subject’s caliber near the $3M +/- price range. Also, PET’s Sale #4 went to contract & closed after the assessment date & it is not worthy of consideration in this hearing. 6. Comparatively speaking, it can be argued that the PAO’s sales #1 - #3 also required substantial gross and net adjustments, yet some not quite to the extent of the PET’s sales. Arguably, it would have been more desirable to have those 3 comps in close proximity to the subject; however, these were the sales the PAO could locate. 7. I give weight to the PAO’s Cost Approach and the PET’s Cost Approach. Given the subject is almost new & there is very little depreciation, the Cost Approach does have its merits. The issues previously described make both Sales Comparison Approaches less useful because of the magnitude of adjustments and (to some extent) the distance of those comps from the subject. I apply a 15% COS deduction to each Cost Approach, and then average the results for a final ruling amount of $2,580,000 (rounded). This results in a just value REDUCTION of $213,160; thus, the PET is given some relief at this hearing. PAO Cost Approach – 15% = $2,536,400 PET Cost Approach – 15% COS = $2,622,767 Average: $2,580,000 (rounded) The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET and a reduction in the just value to $2,580,000 is recommended. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00556: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the 2020-00556 Page 4 of 5 admitted evidence must prove by a 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. 2020-00556 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00557 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00557: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented by Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Jenny Blaje, Mr. Jack Redding, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was represented by Mr. John Silverfield, Esq. & Mr. Kevin Lindheim, MAI, SRA. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a detached single-family 2-story home with a pool & 3 and a half car garage. The subject was built in 2018. The subject’s address is 2960 Sanborn Avenue in Naples. The subject has a base living area of 3,956 SF, and an adjusted building area of 6,826 SF. The subject’s site area is 2.27 acres. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: There have been no prior sales of the subject as improved, but the lot sold for $150,000 in March 2017. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted the Cost Approach & the Sales Comparison Approach to support the subject’s contested just value of $1,884,634, or $276.10/SF of adjusted building area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a cover page, evidence list, potential witness list of the PAO’s staff, summary of salient facts/conclusions, subject aerial photo, subject location/plat map, subject sketch, subject exterior photographs, pool photo, Cost Approach, land sales grid, comparable land sales map, (improved) Sales Comparison Approach grid of 4 sales, comparable sales photographs and sketches, & impact fee calculations. IN THE COST APPROACH, the PAO The PAO concludes 5.00 AC. X $95,000 per AC resulting in land indicator of $475,000. The PAO estimates the impact fees to be $32,224 plus site improvements at $40,000 and the total improvements to be $1,703,034. The total of the two (land & building) components is $1,991,000 (rounded). The PAO did not provide any building permit value information. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides an adjustment grid of 4 improved sales from 2019. All 4 sales are located west of Logan Boulevard. In fact, sales 1 & 2 are also west of I-75. Before any adjustments, the sales ranged in price from $1.1M to $1.925M. Sale #4 is given no weight, since it is the low (outlier) sale, and also the smallest of the 4 comparable sales provided (in terms of adjusted area). The first three sales range in lot size from 2.39 to 2.5 acres, which compares well with the subject’s 2.27 acres. The unadjusted sales prices of sales 1-3 were $1,925,000, $1,875,000, & $1,800,000, respectively. The PAO applies adjustments for dissimilar conditions that result in fully adjusted indicators of $2,092,506, $1,693,811, & $1,905,713, respectively. The PAO concludes $286/SF of adjusted area X 6,826 SF = $1,952,000 via the Sales Comparison Approach. The PAO established the presumption of correctness at the hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET requests a just value of $1,650,000, which is the appraised value as of December 31, 2020 by Mr. Kevin Lindheim, MAI, SRA. His appraisal is based upon his personal inspection of the property and inspection of the grounds. His appraisal also uses 6 closed sales. PET’s sale #5 is the PAO’s sale #3. The 2020-00557 Page 2 of 5 main difference in methodology is that the Mr. Lindheim’s report uses the ‘livable’ square feet as the primary unit of size comparison; whereas, the PAO uses the ‘adjusted’ building area. Most fee appraisers customarily do use the livable areas, then make separate/other adjustments for garages or other patio/porch spaces as may be necessary. Most county property appraisers will use the ‘adjusted’ area, which is a blend of livable and non-livable spaces (normally using factors). The fee appraiser’s Cost Approach value was $2,303,805, while his Sales Comparison Approach’s estimate was $1.65M (and given greater weight by Mr. Lindheim). The PET argues that there is a landscaping maintenance company immediately north of the subject that causes a negative influence upon the subject, due to excess noise during certain hours and also it is less attractive to look at from the subject. He makes a -10% adjustment to each sale for that condition. However, in his Cost Approach he makes a - $420,426 external obsolescence deduction (which does not appear to make sense, as external obsolescence should be divided between the land and the building). Mr. Lindheim’s Cost Approach estimate was $2,303,805, which is well above his Sales Comparison Approach (and higher than the PAO’s Cost Approach of $1,991,000). Apparently, the subject and some other family member homes [petitioned separately] were built with a substantial amount of labor flown to Naples from outside the country. The true cost to build the subject likely exceeded Mr. Lindheim’s estimate, given the subcontractors were being paid a premium for their undivided attention during the construction process. At the hearing, I accepted MLS information from the PET for this petition. It relates to MLS data for 3832 3rd Ave SW, which is PET’s Improved Sale #6. Both the PET & PAO share the sale at 1705 Oakes Boulevard (PET’s Sale #5 and PAO’s Sale #3). PET’s sale #4 closed on February 24, 2020, which is after the assessment date. It is untimely for consideration because the MLS data indicates the contract was executed January 29, 2021 & it later closed in February 2020. RULING: The valuation of a property like the subject is very difficult because this owner’s home (and some of its family’s neighboring homes) are atypical for the immediate rural area. Different appraisal professionals can certainly differ in their analysis and adjustments applied. There are merits to some of the topics brought up by the PET, and also merits to some points brought up by the PAO. I do have certain observations, as follows: 1.The PET’s appraisal has unadjusted sales prices of $1,075,000, $1,200,000, $1,100,000, $957,000, $1,800,000, and $1,400,000. Thus, 3 of the 6 PET sales sold for less than half of the PET’s Cost Approach conclusion of $2.303. 2.From a ‘buyer profile’ perspective, it begs the question as to whether a buyer of a $1M home (as 4 of the 6 just mentioned) is the same type of buyer of a $2M home. The latter buyer would require double the funds as the first. I do not think these buyers are the same because they have different financial abilities and housing expectations. 3.The PET makes ‘gross’ adjustments to his 6 sales of 89.3%, 89.0%, 103.4%, 106.4%, 25.4% [which is fine], and 86.6%. In other words, 5 of the 6 sales had gross adjustments close to (or exceeding) their respective sales prices (i.e. gross adjustments of $1M more or less). 2020-00557 Page 3 of 5 4. While I am not being critical of Mr. Lindheim’s various adjustments, the subject was built in 2018 & is almost new. Mr. Lindheim’s improved sale comps were built in 2006, 2006, 2006, 2008, 2015, and 2000, respectively. While significant age adjustments were applied, 5 of the 6 sales had ages of 10 years or more. 5. Based upon items 1 through 4 above, it really begs the question as to whether the PET’s sale comps provide a good reflection of current market activity for buyers seeking homes of the subject’s caliber near the $2M +/- price range. Also, PET’s Sale #4 went to contract & closed after the assessment date & it is not worthy of consideration in this hearing. 6. I would suggest PAO’s sales #1 - #3 are far more reasonable & reflect the same buyer profile for the subject because they sold within a range of $1.8M-$1.925M. Arguably, it would have been more desirable to have those 3 comps in close proximity to the subject; however, these were the sales the PAO could locate. 7. I give weight to the PAO’s Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO’s Cost Approach, and the PET’s Cost Approach. Given the subject is almost new & there is very little depreciation, the Cost Approach does have its merits. I apply a 15% COS deduction to each, and then average the results for a final ruling amount of $1,770,000 (rounded). This results in a just value REDUCTION of $114,634; thus, the PET is given some relief at this hearing. PAO Sales Approach – 15% COS = $1,659,200 PAO Cost Approach – 15% = $1,692,350 PET Cost Approach – 15% COS = $1,958,234 Average: $1,770,000 (rounded) The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET and a reduction in the just value to $1,770,000 is recommended. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00557: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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 2020-00557 Page 4 of 5 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. 2020-00557 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00558 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00558 70971360003 PSI ATLANTIC NAPLES FL LLC 3121 GOODLETTE-FRANK RDN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 12,902,838.00 12,902,838.00 12,902,838.00 12,902,838.00 12,902,838.00 12,902,838.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,902,838.00 12,902,838.00 12,902,838.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00558: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. The petitioner (PET) was Mr. Vincent Bennett, from Property Tax Advisors LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $12,902,838. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in 2020-00558 Page 2 of 4 this case the Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $12,902,838. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence in a timely manner to the VAB and PET did not exchange evidence with PAO, when requested. PET indicated the subject petition was transferred from another agent (letter of authorization dated 10/1/20), however, the transferring agent neglected to provide Mr. Bennett with the transfer code to the program Axia, so that Mr. Bennett could upload the evidence for PAO to review. Instead, PET forwarded the evidence to the VAB. Consequently, PAO did not receive PET’s evidence. PET requested a good cause reschedule of the hearing and was denied by VAB attorney; VAB attorney stated that petitioner is well aware of the evidence exchange process and if PET is unable to upload the evidence, the evidence should be provided directly to PAO. At the hearing, PET provided evidence. PAO objected to the evidence stating that no evidence was exchanged when requested (PAO letter for exchange of evidence dated 9/17/20) (F.A.C. 12D-9.020(8)). Special Magistrate (SM) stated that based on PAO’s objection, PET’s evidence would not be admitted for consideration. PET requested the hearing continue so that PET could provide the evidence verbally; PAO objected to any verbal evidence since no evidence was exchanged by the parties. SM stated that since no evidence had been exchanged between PAO and PET, and PAO objected to PET’s verbal evidence, PET’s verbal evidence could not be admitted. PET stated that no statute exists on the admissibility of verbal evidence; PET requested direction from VAB counsel on the admissibility of verbal evidence. SM contacted VAB counsel and related the fact that PET had not exchanged evidence with PAO and that PET wanted to verbally submit the evidence. Counsel stated, that if PET did not submit the evidence prior to the VAB hearing, and if PAO objects to PET’s evidence being admitted on record, the VAB is required to refuse to allow PET to submit the evidence. (F. A. C. 12D-9.020(9)). 2020-00558 Page 3 of 4 PET requested the evidence packet be returned, since the evidence would not be admitted for consideration. No evidence was admitted into record for consideration. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00558: The Petitioner was present at the hearing, but the Petitioner had not previously submitted evidence. Therefore, 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. 2020-00558 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00560 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00560 79271800141 7205 VANDERBILT WAY LLC, PTA-CS# 5406 7205 VANDERBILTWAY NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 16,380,275.00 16,380,275.00 16,380,275.00 16,380,275.00 16,380,275.00 16,380,275.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,380,275.00 16,380,275.00 16,380,275.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00560: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. The petitioner (PET) was Mr. Vincent Bennett, from Property Tax Advisors LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $16,380,275. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in 2020-00560 Page 2 of 4 this case the Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $16,380,275. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence in a timely manner to the VAB and PET did not exchange evidence with PAO, when requested. PET indicated the subject petition was transferred from another agent (letter of authorization dated 10/1/20), however, the transferring agent neglected to provide Mr. Bennett with the transfer code to the program Axia, so that Mr. Bennett could upload the evidence for PAO to review. Instead, PET forwarded the evidence to the VAB. Consequently, PAO did not receive PET’s evidence. PET requested a good cause reschedule of the hearing and was denied by VAB attorney; VAB attorney stated that petitioner is well aware of the evidence exchange process and if PET is unable to upload the evidence, the evidence should be provided directly to PAO. At the hearing, PET provided evidence. PAO objected to the evidence stating that no evidence was exchanged when requested (PAO letter for exchange of evidence dated 9/17/20) (F.A.C. 12D-9.020(8)). Special Magistrate (SM) stated that based on PAO’s objection, PET’s evidence would not be admitted for consideration. PET requested the hearing continue so that PET could provide the evidence verbally; PAO objected to any verbal evidence since no evidence was exchanged by the parties. SM stated that since no evidence had been exchanged between PAO and PET, and PAO objected to PET’s verbal evidence, PET’s verbal evidence could not be admitted. PET stated that no statute exists on the admissibility of verbal evidence; PET requested direction from VAB counsel on the admissibility of verbal evidence. SM contacted VAB counsel and related the fact that PET had not exchanged evidence with PAO and that PET wanted to verbally submit the evidence. Counsel stated, that if PET did not submit the evidence prior to the VAB hearing, and if PAO objects to PET’s evidence being admitted on record, the VAB is required to refuse to allow PET to submit the evidence. (F. A. C. 12D-9.020(9)). 2020-00560 Page 3 of 4 PET requested the evidence packet be returned, since the evidence would not be admitted for consideration. No evidence was admitted into record for consideration. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00560: The Petitioner was present at the hearing, but the Petitioner had not previously submitted evidence. Therefore, 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. 2020-00560 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00561 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00561 19060120005 SST IV 275 GOODLETTE-FRANK RD 275 GOODLETTE-FRANK RDN NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 23,554,338.00 23,554,338.00 23,554,338.00 23,554,338.00 23,554,338.00 23,554,338.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,554,338.00 23,554,338.00 23,554,338.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00561: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina and Mr. Clyde Quinby. The petitioner (PET) was Mr. Vincent Bennett, from Property Tax Advisors LLC, agent for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $23,554,338. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO indicated that there was no evidence exchanged between PAO and Petitioner. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO stated that the appropriate appraisal methodology was used to value the property, in 2020-00561 Page 2 of 4 this case the Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach were considered. PAO complied with professionally accepted appraisal practices in appraising the property and; PAO stated the eight criteria in Section 193.011, F. S. were considered. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. PAO established a value for the subject using mass appraisal standards at $23,554,338. PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. PET did not submit evidence in a timely manner to the VAB and PET did not exchange evidence with PAO, when requested. PET indicated the subject petition was transferred from another agent (letter of authorization dated 10/1/20), however, the transferring agent neglected to provide Mr. Bennett with the transfer code to the program Axia, so that Mr. Bennett could upload the evidence for PAO to review. Instead, PET forwarded the evidence to the VAB. Consequently, PAO did not receive PET’s evidence. PET requested a good cause reschedule of the hearing and was denied by VAB attorney; VAB attorney stated that petitioner is well aware of the evidence exchange process and if PET is unable to upload the evidence, the evidence should be provided directly to PAO. At the hearing, PET provided evidence. PAO objected to the evidence stating that no evidence was exchanged when requested (PAO letter for exchange of evidence dated 9/17/20) (F.A.C. 12D-9.020(8)). Special Magistrate (SM) stated that based on PAO’s objection, PET’s evidence would not be admitted for consideration. PET requested the hearing continue so that PET could provide the evidence verbally; PAO objected to any verbal evidence since no evidence was exchanged by the parties. SM stated that since no evidence had been exchanged between PAO and PET, and PAO objected to PET’s verbal evidence, PET’s verbal evidence could not be admitted. PET stated that no statute exists on the admissibility of verbal evidence; PET requested direction from VAB counsel on the admissibility of verbal evidence. SM contacted VAB counsel and related the fact that PET had not exchanged evidence with PAO and that PET wanted to verbally submit the evidence. Counsel stated, that if PET did not submit the evidence prior to the VAB hearing, and if PAO objects to PET’s evidence being admitted on record, the VAB is required to refuse to allow PET to submit the evidence. (F. A. C. 12D-9.020(9)). 2020-00561 Page 3 of 4 PET requested the evidence packet be returned, since the evidence would not be admitted for consideration. No evidence was admitted into record for consideration. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00561: The Petitioner was present at the hearing, but the Petitioner had not previously submitted evidence. Therefore, 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. 2020-00561 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00567 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00567 64410040104 SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 2,908,752.00 2,233,105.00 2,148,740.00 2,342,132.00 2,233,105.00 2,148,740.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,342,132.00 2,233,105.00 2,148,740.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00567: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (KME Orchard Naples, LLC.) was represented via telephone by Mr. John Muratides, Esq. It is worthy to note that there two petitions being heard together (TP-567 & TP-568), as one folio is the main parking lot, while the building is situated upon the southern folio. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a former “Orchard Hardware” store originally built in 2000. The adjusted building area is 34,577 SF. The building is situated upon site of 124,015 SF (i.e. 2.847 acres). Although the subject has gone ‘dark’, the tenant is still paying rent. Apparently, the subject is not being listed for sale or lease. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2017 for $16,857,000 as a leased fee (‘triple net lease’) sale with Orchard Hardware as the credit tenant. The 2020 contested just value of $9,213,583 equates to 54.7% of that old/prior sales price. The subject also sold for $7.28M in mid-2016, then received some renovations and expansion of NRA to accommodate the Orchard layout desired. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $9,213,583, or $266.47/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO did provide a table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, area/neighborhood analysis, subject photographs, locations maps, zoning map, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), improved sales grid/map, Income Approach, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/back-up data for improved sales, PwC Cap Rate Analysis, The Boulder Group Big Box Report, and Avison Young’s cap rate. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $50/SF ($6.2M), based upon 8 recent land sales, plus two older sales that closed near the prior real estate boom in Florida. The PAO adds $310,808 in site work, impact fees of $586,000, indirect costs of $102,567, and entrepreneurial profit of $1,030,746. The PAO applies 25% depreciation to the site work & building components. The end result of the PAO’s calculations is a Cost Approach estimate of $10,483,000, or $303/SF. [NOTE: As a technical matter, I have issue with some of the methodology used in the PAO’s Cost Approach; however, the net impact of the relatively minor errors is not dramatic. I previously reported the figures, as provided by the PAO. Impact fees ‘run with the land’ and do not depreciate.] 2020-00567 Page 2 of 6 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $170-$317/SF, and Sale #2 [the highest sale/SF] is a Goodwill store in Lee County, while the remaining sales are in Collier County. Sale #7 is the 2016 fee simple sale of the subject for $7.28M, or $285/SF, which is given most weight (with some upward consideration for time). The PAO concludes $300/SF X 34,577 SF = $10,373,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses [without taxes] at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.2% (6.0% + 1.2%) to NOI of $615,903 for a value indication of $8,554,000, or $247/SF. The PAO reconciles the 3 approach indicators for a final value of $10,430,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The 300 pages of evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover letter, index of evidence, property summary, aerials, photographs of the subject, property record card, comparable rent analysis, Income Approach, PAO’s 2019 Income Approach, cap rate analysis, Comparable Sales Approach, relevant retail articles, big box retail article, RERC bog box study, 2019 VAB decision, FL DOR property tax bulletin, DR-493, & portions of the 2020 VAB training manual (modules 4 & 6). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach, & an Income Approach in evidence. IN THE PET’S INCOME APPROACH, the PET projects rent at $20/SF NNN for the NRA of 33,951 SF, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 5%, and applies a ‘market’ cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of $612,816 for a value indication of $8,170,874, less a lease-up discount of $846,212, less 15% COS of $1,225,631 for a final value desired of $6,099,031. I am correcting this because it is improper appraisal methodology to make a deduction for a discount for lease-up for a single-user property. Simply stated, it is either 100% vacant or 100% occupied. Vacancy is handled as a factor (very often near 5%) to the PGI as may be typical over a normal holding period. The final Income Approach for the PET should be $8,170,874 less 15% COS = $6,945,243, or $204,57/SF of NRA. The PET reproduces the PAO’s 2019 VAB Income Approach, which estimated a value of $6.57M (before any COS). IN THE PET’S COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH, the PET includes a roster of 12 improved “junior box” sales throughout the State of FL. Only 1 sale (#11) came from Collier County (a former Toys-R-Us with 30,585 SF that sold for $213/SF built in ’96 at 5305 Airport Pulling Road that was also used by the PAO). The other sales came from Broward (4 sales), Lee (2), Manatee (1), Miami-Dade (1), Palm Beach (2), and Bradenton (1). PET’s first sale in Broward was a former furniture store purchased for conversion to a self-storage building by inserting a floor horizontally inside the 20’ box. The buyer motivation was not for normal retail sales as would be more probable for the subject. PET’s sales #2, 3 & 4 in Broward were all built between ’70-’71 & do not reflect the same age/condition as the subject. I give greatest weight to the Collier Sale #11, given it is the only Collier improved sale & it also is very similar in size to the subject. It is noted that it is a little older and it is not on Tamiami Trail North like the subject. Thus, Sale #11 (Toys-R-Us) is a little inferior in terms of condition and location, given Sale #11 is Airport Pulling Road. 2020-00567 Page 3 of 6 The PET includes my 2019 VAB ruling for the subject parcels (i.e. $6,687,789 + $2,129,211 = $8,817,000 combined). That 2019 final ruling also notes the subject sold in July 2016 for $7.28M [which is PAO’s improved sale #7] and then permits were issued for $3,473,390, resulting in $10,753,390 into the property, less 15% COS = $9,140,382 (which was given secondary weight in that prior ruling). That ruling also noted the combined 2018 just value of the subject was $8,773,061. RULING: From testimony, the subject has apparently not been re-listed, even though it is vacant. Therefore, we do not have the benefit of a current listing price or offers that may have been made over the past year since this property was last appealed for VAB relief. I give most significance to the following items: -The 2016 sale of the subject [before being renovated & expanded] for $285/SF, plus some degree of modest appreciation, then COS consideration. -Given the subject has remained empty for the past year, I also give weight to my prior 2019 ruling for the subject for $8,817,000 with possible minor appreciation. While each year stands on its own merits, a great deal of information from the 2019 hearing is included and similar to the evidence for this 2020 hearing. -Next, I give strong weight to the PAO’s reconciled value indication of $10,430,000 ($301.65/SF), less 15% COS indicated on the 2020 DR-493. This results in a just value of $8,865,500 ($256.40/SF) used in the attached breakdown of the two subject petitions (i.e. parcels). The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET’s request for a reduction that totals $348,083. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be reduced as shown in the attached exhibit that allocates the reduction according to each petition’s assessment ratio to the ‘whole’ amount being contested. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00567: 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 2020-00567 Page 4 of 6 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. 2020-00567 Page 5 of 6 Folio % of PAO's PAO's Contested SM's Revised Ending in Petition #Just Value 2020 Just Value 2020 Just Value 104 567 24.2% $2,233,105 $2,148,740 007 568 75.8%$6,980,478 $6,716,760 Total> 100.0%$9,213,583 $8,865,500 Just Value/SF>$266.47 $256.40 2020-00567 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00568 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00568 64410040007 SABRINA WEISS ROBINSON, ESQ 3790 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 7,403,538.00 6,980,478.00 6,716,760.00 7,356,568.00 6,980,478.00 6,716,760.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,356,568.00 6,980,478.00 6,716,760.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 11/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/19/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00568: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (KME Orchard Naples, LLC.) was represented via telephone by Mr. John Muratides, Esq. It is worthy to note that there two petitions being heard together (TP-567 & TP-568), as one folio is the main parking lot, while the building is situated upon the southern folio. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a former “Orchard Hardware” store originally built in 2000. The adjusted building area is 34,577 SF. The building is situated upon site of 124,015 SF (i.e. 2.847 acres). Although the subject has gone ‘dark’, the tenant is still paying rent. Apparently, the subject is not being listed for sale or lease. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in 2017 for $16,857,000 as a leased fee (‘triple net lease’) sale with Orchard Hardware as the credit tenant. The 2020 contested just value of $9,213,583 equates to 54.7% of that old/prior sales price. The subject also sold for $7.28M in mid-2016, then received some renovations and expansion of NRA to accommodate the Orchard layout desired. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: In evidence for this (and all valuation hearings), the PAO presented a 54-page package of information related to the “Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data” for the 2020 tax roll. While the information is lengthy, it basically indicates the PAO’s compliance with DOR regulations in the assessment process within acceptable statistical standards. This information package relates to the entire assessment process within Collier County & it is not unique to the subject of this hearing. The package does include the PAO’s DR-493 for 2020. Also, that package includes a roster of 2019 traffic counts throughout the county that may (or may not) be relevant to various sales (or subject properties) that may be referred to in many commercial VAB hearings throughout the year. The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $9,213,583, or $266.47/SF of adjusted building area. The PAO did provide a table of contents, business card list of PAO officials, summary of salient facts, subject aerials, tax roll sketches, area/neighborhood analysis, subject photographs, locations maps, zoning map, land sales map, land sales summary grid, aerials/back-up data for land sales, Cost Approach summary, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), improved sales grid/map, Income Approach, the deed for the prior sale of the subject, photographs/back-up data for improved sales, PwC Cap Rate Analysis, The Boulder Group Big Box Report, and Avison Young’s cap rate. In the Cost Approach, the PAO estimated land value at $50/SF ($6.2M), based upon 8 recent land sales, plus two older sales that closed near the prior real estate boom in Florida. The PAO adds $310,808 in site work, impact fees of $586,000, indirect costs of $102,567, and entrepreneurial profit of $1,030,746. The PAO applies 25% depreciation to the site work & building components. The end result of the PAO’s calculations is a Cost Approach estimate of $10,483,000, or $303/SF. [NOTE: As a technical matter, I have issue with some of the methodology used in the PAO’s Cost Approach; however, the net impact of the relatively minor errors is not dramatic. I previously reported the figures, as provided by the PAO. Impact fees ‘run with the land’ and do not depreciate.] 2020-00568 Page 2 of 6 In the Sales Comparison Approach, the PAO provides a roster of 8 sales. The sales have $/SF indicators that range from $170-$317/SF, and Sale #2 [the highest sale/SF] is a Goodwill store in Lee County, while the remaining sales are in Collier County. Sale #7 is the 2016 fee simple sale of the subject for $7.28M, or $285/SF, which is given most weight (with some upward consideration for time). The PAO concludes $300/SF X 34,577 SF = $10,373,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. In the Income Approach, the PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses [without taxes] at 25%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.2% (6.0% + 1.2%) to NOI of $615,903 for a value indication of $8,554,000, or $247/SF. The PAO reconciles the 3 approach indicators for a final value of $10,430,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The 300 pages of evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted a cover letter, index of evidence, property summary, aerials, photographs of the subject, property record card, comparable rent analysis, Income Approach, PAO’s 2019 Income Approach, cap rate analysis, Comparable Sales Approach, relevant retail articles, big box retail article, RERC bog box study, 2019 VAB decision, FL DOR property tax bulletin, DR-493, & portions of the 2020 VAB training manual (modules 4 & 6). The PET provides a Comparable Sales Approach, & an Income Approach in evidence. IN THE PET’S INCOME APPROACH, the PET projects rent at $20/SF NNN for the NRA of 33,951 SF, vacancy/collection loss at 5.0%, expenses at 5%, and applies a ‘market’ cap rate of 7.5% to NOI of $612,816 for a value indication of $8,170,874, less a lease-up discount of $846,212, less 15% COS of $1,225,631 for a final value desired of $6,099,031. I am correcting this because it is improper appraisal methodology to make a deduction for a discount for lease-up for a single-user property. Simply stated, it is either 100% vacant or 100% occupied. Vacancy is handled as a factor (very often near 5%) to the PGI as may be typical over a normal holding period. The final Income Approach for the PET should be $8,170,874 less 15% COS = $6,945,243, or $204,57/SF of NRA. The PET reproduces the PAO’s 2019 VAB Income Approach, which estimated a value of $6.57M (before any COS). IN THE PET’S COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH, the PET includes a roster of 12 improved “junior box” sales throughout the State of FL. Only 1 sale (#11) came from Collier County (a former Toys-R-Us with 30,585 SF that sold for $213/SF built in ’96 at 5305 Airport Pulling Road that was also used by the PAO). The other sales came from Broward (4 sales), Lee (2), Manatee (1), Miami-Dade (1), Palm Beach (2), and Bradenton (1). PET’s first sale in Broward was a former furniture store purchased for conversion to a self-storage building by inserting a floor horizontally inside the 20’ box. The buyer motivation was not for normal retail sales as would be more probable for the subject. PET’s sales #2, 3 & 4 in Broward were all built between ’70-’71 & do not reflect the same age/condition as the subject. I give greatest weight to the Collier Sale #11, given it is the only Collier improved sale & it also is very similar in size to the subject. It is noted that it is a little older and it is not on Tamiami Trail North like the subject. Thus, Sale #11 (Toys-R-Us) is a little inferior in terms of condition and location, given Sale #11 is Airport Pulling Road. 2020-00568 Page 3 of 6 The PET includes my 2019 VAB ruling for the subject parcels (i.e. $6,687,789 + $2,129,211 = $8,817,000 combined). That 2019 final ruling also notes the subject sold in July 2016 for $7.28M [which is PAO’s improved sale #7] and then permits were issued for $3,473,390, resulting in $10,753,390 into the property, less 15% COS = $9,140,382 (which was given secondary weight in that prior ruling). That ruling also noted the combined 2018 just value of the subject was $8,773,061. RULING: From testimony, the subject has apparently not been re-listed, even though it is vacant. Therefore, we do not have the benefit of a current listing price or offers that may have been made over the past year since this property was last appealed for VAB relief. I give most significance to the following items: -The 2016 sale of the subject [before being renovated & expanded] for $285/SF, plus some degree of modest appreciation, then COS consideration. -Given the subject has remained empty for the past year, I also give weight to my prior 2019 ruling for the subject for $8,817,000 with possible minor appreciation. While each year stands on its own merits, a great deal of information from the 2019 hearing is included and similar to the evidence for this 2020 hearing. -Next, I give strong weight to the PAO’s reconciled value indication of $10,430,000 ($301.65/SF), less 15% COS indicated on the 2020 DR-493. This results in a just value of $8,865,500 ($256.40/SF) used in the attached breakdown of the two subject petitions (i.e. parcels). The weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PET’s request for a reduction that totals $348,083. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be reduced as shown in the attached exhibit that allocates the reduction according to each petition’s assessment ratio to the ‘whole’ amount being contested. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00568: 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 2020-00568 Page 4 of 6 Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00568 Page 5 of 6 Folio % of PAO's PAO's Contested SM's Revised Ending in Petition #Just Value 2020 Just Value 2020 Just Value 104 567 24.2% $2,233,105 $2,148,740 007 568 75.8%$6,980,478 $6,716,760 Total> 100.0%$9,213,583 $8,865,500 Just Value/SF>$266.47 $256.40 2020-00568 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00571 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00571 54755640004 HYMAN M SUSAN M KAPLAN TRUST 100 KAULA LN NAPLES, FL 34134✔ ✔ 2,830,822.00 2,830,822.00 2,830,822.00 1,895,378.00 1,895,378.00 1,895,378.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,895,378.00 1,895,378.00 1,895,378.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00571: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, and Mr. Clyde Quinby. The Petitioner (PET) was the owner of the property Mr. Hyman Kaplan. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,830,822. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a three-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 2,250-sf and an adjusted building size of 5,602-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the upper levels; also, the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is 7,597-sf. The property was built in 1992, with an effective age of 1992. The property is located in a cluster of houses, horseshoe style, with a shared garden and pool area at the rear of the homes and within walking distance to the Gulf of Mexico from the garden. The property is located at 100 Kaula Lane, Bonita Springs, FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00571 Page 2 of 7 PAO presented a report containing 35 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable building sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales in the subject neighborhood, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales consisted of a vacant parcel, located in the same neighborhood as the subject, and the residual value of the land of 6 improved sales. Most emphasis was placed on the vacant land sale in subject neighborhood, that occurred in February 2019; the size of this parcel is 8,138-sf and is a corner lot similar to the subject. The property sold for $307.20/sf. The remaining sales sold from January 2019 to June 2019 and range in size from 3,392-sf to 7,689-sf; the range in price is from $373.12 to $1,065.31/sf. PAO reconciled the land value at $307.00/sf or $2,332,279. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated building cost is estimated at $840,408, the depreciated site improvements are estimated at $20,000, the land value is estimated at $2,332,279 for a total cost of $3,192,687. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 6 improved sales in the neighborhood. The sales occurred from January 2019 to June 2019. The sales range in building size from 2,845-sf to 7,188-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 3,392-sf to 7,689-sf. The buildings were built from 1987 to 2016. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $413.00/sf to $980.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $640.00/sf and a median of $608.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $640.00/sf of building area including land or $3,585,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 57-page report and included the property record card of several properties in the neighborhood, with aerial photographs of each, survey and sketch boundary survey of the subject, a graph of the just values for the subject from the years 2010 to 2020, aerial of the subject, value adjustment board (VAB) notice of hearing for the subject, current trim notice for the subject. PET included the sales chart from the 2016 VAB petition, and a comparative market analysis for the subject dated 8/23/16 prepared by Cynthia Joannou. PET included the tax bill, for the subject, for the years 2008 to 2019. PET included listings of properties in the neighborhood, with price and photograph, as well as the current listing of the property located next door to the subject. 2020-00571 Page 3 of 7 PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. Most of PET’s evidence is the property record card of homes in subject neighborhood, some of which have recently sold and some are older sales. Of the evidence submitted, PET focused on a graph of the subject’s just values, from the years 2010 to 2020. The graph indicates the just value declined each year to 2014, then increased slightly in 2015, with a significant increase in 2016, then a drop each year to 2019 and an increase in 2020. PET presented a listing for an adjoining property, that is currently listed for sale at an asking price of $4,695,000 or $939/sf of building area; PET indicated the home has been on the market for some time and has not sold; this property is larger than the subject at 5,000-sf and the lot size is 12,883-sf. PET questioned the value of the subject and the amount of time it would take to sell at the current value. PET indicated the subject is an older wood frame home and considered a tear down. PET questioned the land size of PAO’s improved sales, and how the size of the sales compared to the subject, PET indicated some of PAO’s sales are double lots, larger than the subject. PAO made adjustments for the difference in lot size. PET discussed the location of the sales as compared to the subject and indicated that the location of the subject is inferior to most of the sales. PAO’s sales are all in subject neighborhood and are all located in a cluster of houses, horseshoe style, similar to the subject. PAO made adjustments for differences in building size and building quality. All sales have a similar view with access to the Gulf of Mexico. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 2020-00571 Page 4 of 7 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided a land value for the subject, PAO indicated the neighborhood is mostly built-up with very few vacant land 2020-00571 Page 5 of 7 parcels; one vacant land sale, very similar in location to the subject occurred in the year 2019. PAO placed most emphasis on this sale, and the sale indicates that the majority of the value of the subject lies in the land, estimated at $2,332,279; PAO’s Cost Approach indicated a value of $3,192,687. PAO provided adequate, recent improved sales in subject neighborhood, all the sales are located in a cluster of houses, horseshoe style, similar to the subject. PAO’s sales vary in age and construction style. SM excluded PAO’s sales that are newer in age than the subject, that is sales #3,4,5; the average of the remaining sales is $574.00/sf indicating a value for the subject of $3,215,548.00, which is higher than the just value. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00571: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable 2020-00571 Page 6 of 7 appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00571 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00575 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00575: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not show and did not provide evidence for consideration. The hearing was opened and the SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $1,503,700. The TRIM value has not changed. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing. Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition or evidence reviewed in their absence. Petitioner has not provided a good cause statement for failure to appear or for a request for a rescheduled hearing. 2020-00575 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00582 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00582 20763280008 RYAN LLC 1555 5TH AVE S NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 7,845,148.00 7,845,148.00 7,845,148.00 5,675,035.00 5,675,035.00 5,675,035.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,675,035.00 5,675,035.00 5,675,035.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/14/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00582: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $7,845,148. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a 3-story limited service hotel with 103 rooms, branded as La Quinta Inn. Amenities include limited dining, business center, fitness center, meeting rooms, laundry on-site and outdoor pool. The property was damaged, in 2017, from hurricane Irma, and has undergone repairs/renovations; permit for the improvements totals $320,000. The total building area is 43,923-sf; the land size is 216,380-sf or 4.967 acres. The site has waterfrontage, but is locked by a mangrove. The property is located in close proximity to downtown Naples. The building was built in 1989. The properties are located at 1555 5th Avenue South Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 2020-00582 Page 2 of 10 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 92 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, building sketch, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; market value of tangible personal property (TPP), from Collier County Property Appraiser; article on the new Collier County Sports Complex (in close proximity to the subject); individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales, with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate and operating expenses; property record card. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 16 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 10/17 to 1/20. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 193,406-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $13.71/sf to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.40/sf and the median is $21.93/sf. Four of the sales had a proposed hotel use, these sales range from $18.00- $34.00/sf with a mean of $27.00/sf and a median of $22.00/sf. PAO indicated that sales # 8, 9, 10, and 15 are closest to the subject, and sold from $15.00/sf to $60.00/sf. Sale # 15 was developed with a hotel and sold for $18.00/sf. The location of sale # 15is inferior to the subject. PAO reconciled a value at $25.00/sf or $5,410,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $3,709,001, impact fees are estimated at $454,000, the land value is estimated at $5,410,000 for a total cost of $9,570,000 rounded. Contributory Value of Assets (TPP and BEV (intangible personal property)- PAO provided a Cost Approach value for the going concern of the hotel, which comprises three elements: real property, tangible personal property (TTP or FF&E) and intangible value contributions ( business enterprise value). The 2020 market value of the TTP is $633,899 per Collier County Property Appraiser, this value is based on the original cost information for the TPP that was supplied by the owner and depreciated/adjusted to 2020-00582 Page 3 of 10 current market value. PAO has considered the TPP value at $640,000 rounded. The intangible personal property (BEV) is estimated at $990,000. PAO estimated BEV by deducting the cost approach value of the real estate and the TPP from the sales comparison and the income approach (further in the report). The extracted BEV from the two approaches to value provides a reasonable estimate. The BEV estimate from the Sales Comparison Approach is $1,223,000, the BEV from the Income Approach is estimated at $748,000, the average of these two values is $990,000 rounded. For the cost approach the BEV is added to the value and in the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach the value is deducted. Summary Cost Approach: The total value of the subject by the Cost Approach-Going Concern is $9,570,000, plus $640,000 for tangible personal property (TTP) and $990,000 for intangible property (BEV) for a total of $11,200,000 or $259.33/sf or $108,738/room. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 24 sales of hotels in the state of Florida. The sales range in building size from 37,372-sf to 589,000-sf with a mean of 110,037-sf and a median of 75,783-sf; and 68 to 742 rooms. The buildings were built from 1974 to 2015. The sales range from $89.00/sf to $421.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $206.00/sf and a median of $206.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $58,824 to $258,503 with a mean of $127,854 and a mean of $124,796. The occupancy ranges from 68% to 87.90% with an average of 77.76% and a median of 76.85%. The average daily rate (ADR) ranges from $84.52 to $195.00 with a mean of $118.95 and a median of $116.54. The revenue per available room (RevPAR) ranges from $68.00 to $148.20 with a mean of $92.32 and a median of $90.09. The gross room revenue multiplier (GRRM) ranges from 2.13 to 4.96 with a mean of 3.69 and a median of 3.60. PAO provided 13 additional sales in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties. The 13 sales range in building size from 31,808-sf to 84,934-sf with a mean of 56,439-sf and a median of 53,660-sf; and 68 to 148 rooms. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2009. The sales range from $112.00/sf to $342.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $217.00/sf and a median of $213.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $53,774 to $184,314 with a mean of $120,691 and a mean of $116,364. No information on the occupancy, ADR, RevPAR and GRRM were available for these 13 sales. PAO reconciled a value based on a RevPAR calculation at $111,000/room x 103 rooms = $11,433,000. PAO estimated the GRRM at 3.22 x gross room revenue from the income approach of $2,723,748 = $8,771,380 or $107,000/room rounded x 103 rooms = $11,021,000 Summary Sales Comparison Approach: Estimated value by Sales Comparison Approach $11,433,000, less TPP or $640,000, less 2020-00582 Page 4 of 10 intangible property of $990,000 = $9,803,000, Fee Simple Value (Real Estate only) or $95,175/room. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided support from the STR Trend Report (a survey for hotels) for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR. The occupancy for central Florida and Naples submarket for upscale hotels ranges from 64.1% to 68.9%, the ADR ranges from $116.06 to $241.99/room and the RevPAR ranges from $70.46 to $156.20/ room. The subject’s 3-yr historical average for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR is calculated at 67%, $125.00 and $83.75 respectively. The total room income is estimated at $3,148,581. Other income has been estimated at 1.00% of room revenue or $31,486. Total revenue is estimated at $3,180,067. PAO provided support for operating expenses from 24 hotels located throughout Florida. The operating expense ratio (expenses divided by gross income) ranges from 58.12% to 74.67% with an average of 66.70% and a median of 66.58%. Limited service properties expense ratios range from 58% to 75% with an average of 66%. 2020 STR survey reports 62.2% for the south Atlantic Region and 58.1% for upscale hotels. PAO has estimated the operating expense ratio at 68.3%, which includes undistributed expenses, management fee and fixed expenses or $2,171,891. The net operating income NOI is $1,008,176. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 24 hotel sales in Florida. The cap rates range from 7.50% to 10.70% with a mean of 8.77% and a median of 8.65%. PAO’s local sales indicate a cap rate range from 7.5% to 9.38% with an average of 8.47% and a mean of 8.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for hotels taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 12.00% with an average of 8.04%. PAO used a cap rate of 8.00% and loaded the mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 9.20%. The NOI of $1,008,176 capitalized at 9.20% indicates a value of $10,958,000 rounded. Summary Income Approach: Estimated value by Income Approach $10,958,000 rounded, less TPP of $640,000 and less intangible personal property of $990,000 for a value of $9,328,000 for real estate only. PAO’s just value conclusion: $7,845,148. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its 2020-00582 Page 5 of 10 just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; 2020-00582 Page 6 of 10 (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 38-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, tax bill for 2020, photograph of the subject and location map. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and market proforma. PET provided a summary of income and expenses for the subject. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided the STR report for January 17, 2020. PET provided market support for the capitalization rate (cap rate), operating expenses and management and franchise fees. PET provided an article, from Hotel News Now, on reserves. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach only. PAO provided a value based on actual income generated at the subject in the year 2019. The occupancy was 63% and the ADR was $114.87/room, and RevPAR was $72.31/room. The total room income is estimated at $2,718,727. Other income has been estimated at $5,698. Total revenue is estimated at $2,724,425. Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated total expenses at $2,049,085 or 75.21% of income. The net operating income NOI is $675,340. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, 2020-00582 Page 7 of 10 Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.152% for a total cap rate of 10.02%. The NOI of $675,340 capitalized at 10.02% indicates a value of $6,743,184 less personal property of $633,899 indicates a value of $6,109,285, less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $5,193,000 rounded. PET provided a market proforma Income Approach. The STR report for the subject was provided by PET and indicates an occupancy rate of 62.9%, an ADR of $114.98/room and a RevPAR of $72.38/room. PET estimated an ADR of $120.00/room for the subject for a gross room revenue of $4,511,400. PET estimated a vacancy of 35% of total income or $1,578,990. The effective gross income is estimated at $2,932,410 or $78.00/room/day. PAO’s equivalent is $84.59/ room/day Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated total expenses at $2,023,363 or 69% of income. The net operating income NOI is $909,047. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.0152% for a total cap rate of 10.02%. The NOI of $909,047 capitalized at 10.02% indicates a value of $9,076,720 less personal property of $633,899 indicates a value of $8,442,821. PET deducted the 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of $7,176,398. PET value conclusion: $7,176,398 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET’s cap rate is slightly high. PET’s value conclusion is close to the just value. PAO indicted that this hotel is well booked during season, due to the good location, close to downtown and the beaches. As rebuttal, PET indicated there is a discrepancy in value between the actual income proforma and the market proforma due to the hotel being partially closed because of the damages from the hurricane. PET indicated there is no advance booking at this hotel and it is a limited service hotel. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the 2020-00582 Page 8 of 10 value using the three approaches to value and provided analysis of the tangible and intangible property. PET provided the Income Approach only. PET did not address the intangible property separately. Both PAO and PET deducted operating expenses of 69% of total revenue, however PET’s total revenue and average daily rate are lower than PAO’s. PAO provided good support for the cap rate, from sales in Collier and Lee counties; PAO estimated a cap rate based on the location of the subject. PET’s cap rate is from national surveys with no cap rates in Collier or Lee County. PET’s market pro forma at 53% occupancy is not supported and considered understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00582: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and 2020-00582 Page 9 of 10 the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00582 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00583 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00583 21785002027 RYAN LLC 185 BEDZELCIR NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 6,996,871.00 6,996,871.00 6,996,871.00 4,182,503.00 4,182,503.00 4,182,503.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,182,503.00 4,182,503.00 4,182,503.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/14/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00583: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $6,996,871. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a 4-story limited service hotel with 103 rooms, branded as La Quinta Inn. Amenities include limited dining, business center, fitness center, meeting rooms, laundry on-site and outdoor pool. The property was damaged, in 2017, from hurricane Irma, and has undergone repairs/renovations; permit for the improvements totals $1,800,000. The total building area is 47,944-sf; the land size is 93,218-sf or 2.139 acres. The building was built in 1995. The properties are located at 185 Bedzel Circle Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00583 Page 2 of 10 PAO presented a report containing 92 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, building sketch, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; market value of tangible personal property (TPP), from Collier County Property Appraiser; article on the new Collier County Sports Complex (in close proximity to the subject); individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales, with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate and operating expenses; property record card. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO stated that the subject is located in close proximity to the new Collier County Sports Complex, which will benefit the hotel industry in the area of the subject for housing of out of town teams and guests. Supporting and adjacent uses include retail/commercial uses, a proposed 300-unit apartment complex next door. The hotel has good access to Marco Island and downtown Naples and is a more reasonable cost hotel than higher cost options in these locations. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 16 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 10/17 to 1/20. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 193,406-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $13.71/sf to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.40/sf and the median is $21.93/sf. Four of the sales had a proposed hotel use, these sales range from $18.00- $34.00/sf with a mean of $27.00/sf and a median of $22.00/sf. PAO indicated that sales # 3 and 6 are closest to the subject, and sold from $14.00/sf to $17.00/sf.; both sales were heavily wooded at time of sale and needed fill. PAO reconciled a value at $16.00/sf or $1,490,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $5,849,770, impact fees are estimated at $493,000, the land value is estimated at $1,490,000 for a total cost of $7,830,000 rounded. Contributory Value of Assets (TPP and BEV (intangible personal property)- PAO 2020-00583 Page 3 of 10 provided a Cost Approach value for the going concern of the hotel, which comprises three elements: real property, tangible personal property (TTP or FF&E) and intangible value contributions ( business enterprise value). The 2020 market value of the TTP is $401,258 per Collier County Property Appraiser, this value is based on the original cost information for the TPP that was supplied by the owner and depreciated/adjusted to current market value. PAO has considered the TPP value at $400,000 rounded. The intangible personal property (BEV) is estimated at $650,000. PAO estimated BEV by deducting the cost approach value of the real estate and the TPP from the sales comparison and the income approach (further in the report). The extracted BEV from the two approaches to value provides a reasonable estimate. The BEV estimate from the Sales Comparison Approach is $525,000, the BEV from the Income Approach is estimated at $767,000, the average of these two values is $650,000 rounded. For the cost approach the BEV is added to the value and in the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach the value is deducted. Summary Cost Approach: The total value of the subject by the Cost Approach-Going Concern is $7,830,000, plus $400,000 for tangible personal property (TTP) and $650,000 for intangible property (BEV) for a total of $8,880,000 or $185.22/sf or $86,214/room. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 24 sales of hotels in the state of Florida. The sales range in building size from 37,372-sf to 589,000-sf with a mean of 110,037-sf and a median of 75,783-sf; and 68 to 742 rooms. The buildings were built from 1974 to 2015. The sales range from $89.00/sf to $421.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $206.00/sf and a median of $206.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $58,824 to $258,503 with a mean of $127,854 and a mean of $124,796. The occupancy ranges from 68% to 87.90% with an average of 77.76% and a median of 76.85%. The average daily rate (ADR) ranges from $84.52 to $195.00 with a mean of $118.95 and a median of $116.54. The revenue per available room (RevPAR) ranges from $68.00 to $148.20 with a mean of $92.32 and a median of $90.09. The gross room revenue multiplier (GRRM) ranges from 2.13 to 4.96 with a mean of 3.69 and a median of 3.60. PAO provided 13 additional sales in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties. The 13 sales range in building size from 31,808-sf to 84,934-sf with a mean of 56,439-sf and a median of 53,660-sf; and 68 to 148 rooms. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2009. The sales range from $112.00/sf to $342.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $217.00/sf and a median of $213.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $53,774 to $184,314 with a mean of $120,691 and a mean of $116,364. No information on the occupancy, ADR, RevPAR and GRRM were available for these 13 sales. PAO reconciled a value based on a RevPAR calculation at $81,000/room x 103 rooms = $8,343,000. PAO estimated the GRRM at 3.22 x gross room revenue from the income 2020-00583 Page 4 of 10 approach of $2,723,748 = $8,771,380/103 rooms= $85,000/room rounded x 103 rooms = $8,755,000 Summary Sales Comparison Approach: Estimated value by Sales Comparison Approach $8,755,000, less TPP or $400,000, less intangible property of $650,000 = $7,705,000 Fee Simple Value (Real Estate only) or $74,806/room. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided support from the STR Trend Report (a survey for hotels) for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR. The occupancy for central Florida and Naples submarket for upscale hotels ranges from 57.3% to 68.9%, the ADR ranges from $116.06 to $241.99/room and the RevPAR ranges from $80.00 to $156.20/ room. The subject’s 3-yr historical average for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR is calculated at 69%, $105.00 and $72.45 respectively. The total room income is estimated at $2,723,758. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $54,475. Total revenue is estimated at $2,778,233. PAO provided support for operating expenses from 24 hotels located throughout Florida. The operating expense ratio (expenses divided by gross income) ranges from 58.12% to 74.67% with an average of 66.70% and a median of 66.58%. Limited service properties expense ratios range from 58% to 75% with an average of 66%. 2020 STR survey reports 62.2% for the south Atlantic Region and 58.1% for upscale hotels. PAO has estimated the operating expense ratio at 68.6%, which includes undistributed expenses, management fee and fixed expenses or $1,905,542. The net operating income NOI is $872,692. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 24 hotel sales in Florida. The cap rates range from 7.50% to 10.70% with a mean of 8.77% and a median of 8.65%. PAO’s local sales indicate a cap rate range from 7.5% to 9.38% with an average of 8.47% and a mean of 8.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for hotels taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 12.00% with an average of 8.04%. PAO used a cap rate of 8.50% and loaded the mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 9.70%. The NOI of $872,692 capitalized at 9.70% indicates a value of $8,997,000 rounded. Summary Income Approach: Estimated value by Income Approach $8,997,000 rounded, less TPP of $400,000 and less intangible personal property of $650,000 for a value of $7,947,000 for real estate 2020-00583 Page 5 of 10 only. PAO’s just value conclusion: $6,996,871. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2020-00583 Page 6 of 10 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 38-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, tax bill for 2020, photograph of the subject and location map. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and market proforma. PET provided a summary of income and expenses for the subject. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided the STR report for January 17, 2020. PET provided market support for the capitalization rate (cap rate), operating expenses and management and franchise fees. PET provided an article, from Hotel News Now, on reserves. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach only. PAO provided a value based on actual income generated at the subject in the year 2019. The occupancy was 58.5% and the ADR was $95.07/room, and RevPAR was $55.59/room. The total room income is estimated at $2,089,854 ($55.59 RevPAR). Other income has been estimated at $17,136. Total revenue is estimated at $2,106,998. Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated 2020-00583 Page 7 of 10 total expenses at $1,563,561 or 74.21% of income. The net operating income NOI is $543,437. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.1495% for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $543,437 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $5,354,345 less personal property of $401,258 indicates a value of $4,953,087, less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $4,210,000 rounded. PET provided a market proforma Income Approach. The STR report for the subject was provided by PET and indicates an occupancy rate of 58.5%, an ADR of $100.00/room and a RevPAR of $53.00/room. PET estimated an ADR of $100.00/room for the subject for a gross room revenue of $3,759,500. PET estimated a vacancy of 47% of total income or $1,766,965. The effective gross income is estimated at $1,992,535 or $53.00/room/day. PAO’s equivalent is $72.45/ room/day Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated total expenses at $1,434,625 or 72% of income. The net operating income NOI is $557,910. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.1495% for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $557,910 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $5,496,941 less personal property of $401,258 indicates a value of $5,095,683. PET deducted the 15% cost of sales for an indicated value of $4,331,000. PET value conclusion: $4,250,000 ($41,262/room) As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET’s cap rate is slightly high. PAO indicated the repairs/ renovations were substantially complete as of 1/1/19. As rebuttal, PET indicated there is no advance booking at this hotel and it is a limited service hotel. 2020-00583 Page 8 of 10 Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value and provided analysis of the tangible and intangible property. PET provided the Income Approach only. PET did not address the intangible property separately. PAO deducted operating expenses of 69% of total revenue, and PET deducted expenses at 72% of revenue. PET’s total revenue and average daily rate are lower than PAO’s. PAO provided good support for the cap rate, from sales in Collier and Lee counties; PAO estimated a cap rate based on the location of the subject. PET’s cap rate is from national surveys with no cap rates in Collier or Lee County. PET’s market pro forma at 53% occupancy is not supported and considered understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00583: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). 2020-00583 Page 9 of 10 The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00583 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00584 Page 1 of 7 Collier ✔ 2020-00584 09410000358 RYAN LLC 385 14THAVE S NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 2,231,922.00 2,231,922.00 2,231,922.00 1,548,369.00 1,548,369.00 1,548,369.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,548,369.00 1,548,369.00 1,548,369.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/08/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/09/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00584: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $2,231,922. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a one-story class C-average bank, occupied by Fifth Third Bank. The building area is 2,983-sf. the land size is 21,233-sf or .487 acres. The building was built in 1975. There was a partial transfer of the subject property in June 2019 for $675,000; PAO indicated this was not a qualified sale. The property is located at 385 14th Avenue South, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 70 pages. The report included the evidence and 2020-00584 Page 2 of 7 witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, aerials, location and site maps, photographs of the subject, and building sketches. Regional, neighborhood and market analysis, description of site and improvements, highest and best use analysis. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach, the Income Approach was not developed, PET included general assumptions and limiting conditions. The addenda contains deed with the legal description, photographs and details of the comparable sales, and the subject property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO mentioned that the subject is located in a desirable area of Naples, in close proximity to 3rd Avenue South, a popular commercial location. PAO indicated the highest and best use of the subject is redevelopment of the site to commercial uses on the first floor and office or residential on the upper levels. The current use of the subject is not the highest and best use. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 6 land sales, and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in the subject neighborhood, some sales were developed at time of sale, however sold as redevelopment sites. The land sales occurred from 4/17 to 2/20. The land sales range in size from 11,821-sf to 52,800-sf. The unadjusted sales, ranges from $103.03/sf to $212.25/sf. The mean of all the sales is $147.83/sf and the median is $123.80/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $150.00/sf x 21,233-sf or $3,180,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost is estimated at $203,996, impact fees are estimated at $69,000, and the land value is estimated at $3,180,000, for a total cost of $3,450,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 4 sales of properties in close proximity to the subject. The sales occurred from 6/17 to 1/20. The sales range in building size from 2,381-sf to 4,501-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 9,425-sf to 17,274-sf with a land to building ratio ranging from 24% to 37%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 14%. The buildings were built from 1959 to 2014. The sales range from $871.00/sf to $2,499/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $1,568.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $1,451.00/sf of building area including land. PAO reconciled a value at $1,200.00/sf of building area including land or $3,580,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: $2,231,922. 2020-00584 Page 3 of 7 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and 2020-00584 Page 4 of 7 depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 41-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, aerial, listing sheet of partial sale of the subject, with photograph and location map, warranty deed for the sale, location map and aerial of the subject, PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided comparable lease information with details of each lease with photo. PET provided market support for the vacancy rate, rent analysis, and capitalization rate (cap rate). PET provided an overall and Naples construction summary from CoStar. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach and provided 7 retail rental comparables in Naples. The rents range in size from 1,621-sf to 7,000-sf. The asking rents range from $23.00/sf to $36.00/sf on a triple net basis. PET estimated a rent of $30.00/sf triple net on an area of 2,983-sf for a gross income of $89,490. PET provided a vacancy analysis in Naples that indicates an average vacancy of 6.1% PET estimated a vacancy of 5% or $4,475. The effective gross income (EGI) is estimated at $85,016. PET provided support for reserves from Realty Rates for retail space at $.30/sf to $.96/sf with the typical being $.62/sf. PET estimated the operating expenses including reserves at 9% of EGI or $7,651 or $2.57/sf. 2020-00584 Page 5 of 7 The NOI is estimated at $77,364. PET provided support from national surveys, such as Viewpoint, RERC and Realty Rates, for the year 2019. The cap rates range from 6.00% to 10.5% for retail properties. PET estimated a cap rate of 7.00%. The NOI of $77,364.00 capitalized at 7.00% indicates a value of $1,105,202, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $940,000 or $315.12/sf. PET’s reconciled value conclusion $940,000. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject is an interim use and the land value alone is estimated at $3,180,000. The partial sale of the subject was not a qualified sale and no weight should be placed on this sale. PAO mentioned that PET’s comparable rents are not comparable to the subject location. The subject has a land to building ratio of 14% and comparable properties are at 24% to 37% indicating the subject has surplus land that is not accounted for in PET’s analysis. PET had not rebuttal. PAO provided good support for the value, the subject is an interim use and the land value is the best indicator of value. PET did not consider the highest and best use of the subject, F.S. 193.011(2). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00584: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption 2020-00584 Page 6 of 7 of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00584 Page 7 of 7 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00586 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00586 00176760009 RYAN LLC 9101 STRADAPL NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 129,343,003.00 129,343,003.00 129,343,003.00 129,343,003.00 129,343,003.00 129,343,003.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129,343,003.00 129,343,003.00 129,343,003.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/10/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00586: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $129,343,003. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a class C-good, retail regional shopping (more of a lifestyle center), known as Mercato. Anchor tenants include Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack, and Silverspot Cinema with in-line tenants, office space, and free-standing restaurants, that include The Capitol Grille. Some of the buildings have retail on the first floor and residential condominium or office units above the retail space. There is a four- level parking garage that is not included in this petition. The total building area for this petition is 490,023-sf. The land size for the retail center comprises 1,800,770-sf or 41.339 acres. The property was developed in stages from 2008-2009. PAO indicated the subject sold in May 2015 for $239,550,000 and included the sale of an additional .31- acre parcel; this is an investment grade property. The property has several addresses but for purposes of this petition the following address is being used 9101 Strada Place 7550 , Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market 2020-00586 Page 2 of 10 value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 151 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, subject exhibits, with photographs of the subject, aerials and site maps, building sketches, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, description of the site and improvements, market analysis, highest and best use analysis. PAO included a land valuation, with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO provided general assumption and limiting conditions, the deed with the legal description, impact fees, description sheets of each land and improved sales with photographs, market support for cap rates and the property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 7/14 to 1/20. The land sales range in size from 155,407-sf to 2,424,550-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $8.33 to $117.76/sf. The mean of all the sales is $33.92/sf and the median is $26.49/sf. PAO placed most emphasis on Sale # 6 ($27.55/sf), located just north of the subject, this sale is smaller than the subject and most reflective of the subject’s land value. PAO reconciled at $25.00/sf on 1,800,770-sf for a value of $45,019,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $114,459,834 plus impact fees estimated at $7,796,379, plus the land value estimated at $45,019,000 for a total cost of $167,275,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 5 sales of properties in Collier County, including the sale of the subject in 5/15. The sales occurred from 9/14 to 9/19. The sales range in building size from 59,244-sf to 490,023-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 383,328-sf to 1,814,274-sf, with a land to building ratio ranging from 17.2% to 27.2%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 27.2%. The buildings were built from 1986 to 2018. The sales range from $231.00 to $489.00.00/sf of building 2020-00586 Page 3 of 10 area including land. All sales have a mean price of $349.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $338.00/sf of building area including land. The subject sold in 5/15 for $489.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $350.00/sf of building area including land or $171,508,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rents in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties of community, neighborhood, freestanding and power centers, with anchor tenants. The building sizes range from 21,000-sf to 62,000-sf; the rents range from $5.00 to $19.33/sf with a mean of $11.77/sf and a median of $11.02/sf on a gross basis (where the owner pays the majority of the expenses). PAO estimated a gross rent for the anchor space (Whole Foods & Nordstrom Rack-81,942-sf) at $20.00/sf gross on 50,314-sf or $1,638,900. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, for In-Line space in neighborhood and community centers with an anchor tenant; the unit sizes range from 840-sf to 10,000-sf; the rents range from $25.80 to $69.50/sf with a mean of $39.90/sf and a median of $38.95/sf on a gross basis. PAO provided 14 rent listings of in-line retail space in Naples. The units range from 648-sf to 4,939-sf with a mean of 1,703-sf and a median of 1,372-sf. The rents range from $20.00 to $85.00/sf with a mean of $49.80/sf and a median $44.50/sf. The common area maintenance (CAM) ranges from $7.31/sf to $16.35/sf with a mean of $11.75/sf and a median of $11.43/sf. The gross rent equivalent ranges from $29.09/sf to $97.93/sf with a mean of $61.55/sf and a median of $57.87/sf. PAO provided base rents, for space, in various buildings, in subject development, that are currently for lease. These rents range from $22.00/sf to $51.00/sf with a low mean of $28.80 and a high mean of $35.30/sf. PAO estimated a gross rent for the in-line tenants at $40.00/sf gross on 235,080-sf or $9,403,200. PAO provided comparable, class A and B office rents, in close proximity to the subject. The office sizes range from 1,496-sf to 19,782-sf; the rents range from $20.00 to $29.00/ sf; the CAM ranges from $9.69 to 13.37/sf and the gross equivalent rent ranges from $31/11/sf to $41.37/sf. PAO estimated a gross rent for the office space at $30.00/sf gross on 136,997-sf or $4,109,910. PAO estimated the theatre at $20.00/sf on 36,004-sf or $720,080. PAO estimated a total Gross income (includes all common area maintenance (CAM) for the subject of $15,872,090 or $32.39/sf average. PAO provided vacancy and collection loss support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 4.6% to 6.90% with a 3-yr average of 6.00% and an average for 2019 of 6.32%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy and collection loss of 10% or $1,587,209. 2020-00586 Page 4 of 10 The effective income (EGI) is $14,284,881. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 15 commercial strip, neighborhood and community centers; the centers range in size from 17,000-sf to 245,000-sf with a mean of 62,357-sf and a median of 44,500-sf. The effective gross income (EGI) for these centers ranges from $9.44/sf to $32.26/sf with a mean of $18.51 and a median of $17.09/sf; operating expenses range from $1.83/sf to $7.73/sf with a mean of $5.01/sf to $5.45/sf; the operating expense ratio ranges from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% and a median of 27.2%; expenses have been adjusted to exclude real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. The operating income ranges from $7.44 to $29.14/sf; the operating expenses range from $2.44/sf to $9.40/sf. PAO used an expense ratio of 30% of effective gross income (EGI) or $4,285,464 or $8.75/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $9,999,417 or $20.41/sf. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 9 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 5.8% to 7.96% with a mean of 6.46% and a median of 6.46% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.26-$26.01/sf). PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.35% to 9.33% with an average of 6.86%. PAO used a cap rate of 5% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 6.20%. The NOI of $9,999,417capitalized at 6.20% indicates a value of $161,281,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion is $129,343,003 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or 2020-00586 Page 5 of 10 indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. 2020-00586 Page 6 of 10 Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 52-page, which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, subject tax bill, photos of 10 buildings at the subject with asking rental rates for vacant space. PET developed the Income Approach for the retail space and the office space. PET provided comparable retail and office rents, with photos and details on each comparable. PET provided market support for the vacancy rate, and capitalization rate (cap rate). PET provided the overall construction summary for the Naples area. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach using market rents for the retail portion of the center and office market rents for the office portion. PET provided 8 rent listings for retail space in Naples. The centers range from 220,254-sf to 1,355,036-sf. The rents for these centers ranges from $20.00 to $30.00/sf. PET applied 9 different retail rents, ranging from $25.00/sf to $52.50/sf to the subject based on the size of the space. The smaller spaces were leased at a higher rate/sf than the larger spaces. PET’s gross income from all spaces (305,771-sf) is $11,146,788 or $36.34/sf average. PET provided vacancy rates from CoStar that range from 4% to 15.6%, PET used a vacancy rate of 10% on the retail space or $1,114,679. The effectible gross income (EGI) for the retail space is $10,032,109. PET provided support for expense ratio from a national survey Realty Rates.com in the range of 36.99% to 52.58%. PET estimated the operating expenses for the retail space, excluding real estate taxes at 27% of EGI or $2,708,669 or $8.86/sf. The NOI for retail space is estimated at $7,323,439. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, for the year 2019 for neighborhood centers. The surveys indicate cap rates; Viewpoint (6.8%-7.3%), RERC (6.5%-9.5%), Realty Rates.com (8.91%). PET used a cap rate of 8.00% and added a mill rate of 1.081% for a total cap rate of 9.1%. 2020-00586 Page 7 of 10 The NOI of $7,323,439.00 capitalized at 9.1% indicates a value of $80,647,158, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $68,550,000. PET provided 16 rent listings for office space in Naples. The buildings range in size from 9,370-sf to 165,000-sf. The rents range from $18.00 to $29.00/sf, triple net. The CAM for these rents range from $5.22/sf to $10.16/sf. PET estimated a gross income for the office space at $35.00/sf gross on 140,168-sf or $4,905,880. PET provided vacancy rates from CoStar that range from 4.4% to 11.4%%, PET used a vacancy rate of 10% on the office space or $490,588. The effectible gross income (EGI) for the office space is $4,415,292. PET provided support for the expense ratio from a national survey Realty Rates.com in the range of 42.55% to 58.95%. PET estimated the operating expenses for the office space, excluding real estate taxes at 25% of EGI or $1,103,823 and reserves of 4% or $176,612 for total expenses of $1,280,435 or 29% of EGI or $9.14/sf. The NOI for retail space is estimated at $3,134,857. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, for the year 2019 for office space. The surveys indicate cap rates; CoStar (7.5%), RERC (6.8%-9.3%), Realty Rates.com (8.91%). PET used a cap rate of 7.50% and added a mill rate of 1.081% for a total cap rate of 8.58%. The NOI of $3,134,857.00 capitalized at 8.58% indicates a value of $36,533,222, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $31,050,000. PET’s reconciled value conclusion $99,600,000. As rebuttal PET mentioned that the sale, of the subject in May 2015, was to an insurance company and that insurance companies make real estate investments to offset other investments and acquire trophy properties. There is a limited market for a property, such as the subject, and the model fits for a stabilized trophy property for the insurance company. Insurance companies typically pay a premium for such properties. PET indicated that market conditions are different today than in 2015. PET indicated that PAO’s improved sales are not comparable. PET indicated they provided a separate value for the retail and office using different cap rates. PAO applied a cap rate across the board for all the space. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the office and retail space was separated and a different rent was applied to each. PAO indicated there is a discrepancy of 44,084-sf in the building square footage, PET’s building size is smaller than PAO’s building size. PAO indicated that PET’s rents are from CoStar, where an estimate is made, the CoStar rents do not 2020-00586 Page 8 of 10 necessarily reflect the asking rents for the comparables. PAO provided local cap rates, while PET provided cap rates from national surveys with no local cap rates. PAO indicated that the purchaser of the subject are savvy investors and would not overpay for the property. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. There is a large discrepancy in the square footage of the center (44,084-sf) from PAO’s and PET’s estimate; PAO provided building sketches and property record cards for each building, PET did not provide support for the building size. PAO’s support of cap rates from local sales provides good support for the cap rate. The discrepancy in value from PAO’s estimate and PET’s estimate is in the building size and the difference in cap rates. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00586: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. PET’s value is understated. 2020-00586 Page 9 of 10 Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00586 Page 10 of 10 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00587 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00587 17911760008 JOHN G. VEGA, ESQ 680 BOUGAINVILLEA RD NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 2,095,686.00 2,095,686.00 2,095,686.00 2,095,686.00 2,095,686.00 1,173,940.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 2,045,686.00 2,045,686.00 1,123,940.00 ✔ ✔ (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 12/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/14/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Heather Erin Donlan. Petitioner owns property located at 680 Bougainvillea Road, Naples, Florida. Petitioner is challenging the removal by the Collier County Property Appraiser of the Saves Our Homes cap and its failure to “transfer” (reinstate) the homestead assessment difference (“savings”) to the subject property when she applied for her homestead exemption on the property in 2020. Petitioner was present, along with her daughter, Sophia Sinberg, and was represented at the hearing by John Vega, her attorney. The Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented by Christopher Woolsey, its attorney, Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions and Customer Service, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemption. All persons who were going to testify were sworn. The PAO offered its evidence package consisting of 37 pages, which included Florida statutes and court opinions, and admitted as PAO Composite Exhibit 1, without objection, but with the understanding of the participants that case law and statutes, although not evidence, may be considered by the Special Magistrate. Petitioner offered twenty-two exhibits which were admitted without objection. Attorney Vega provided an index of these documents, which has been modified by the Special Magistrate to reflect the renumbering of the documentary exhibits. Petitioner offered an unexecuted Trust Agreement for the Sinberg Family Trust. The document was objected to by PAO, which objection was sustained. After the document was authenticated by Petitioner, it was admitted over PAO’s objection as P. Ex. 23, on grounds that the document had been sufficiently authenticated to be reliable evidence as to the contents of the trust and was relevant. The subject property was purchased by Sinberg Family Trust in 2006. Petitioner and her husband, Zachary Sinberg, were co-trustees under the Trust. (P. Ex. 22, 24, 26, 3) However, only Zachary Sinberg signed the application for the homestead exemption in 2007. (Ybaceta) Under Article IV of the Trust, either co-Trustee had authority to act alone, however, any distribution of the trust corpus had to be for the benefit of both Settlors. (P. Ex. 25) On September 2, 2017, the marriage of Petitioner and her husband was dissolved by the court. (P. Ex. 5) The Trust was revoked on October 9, 2017, at which time Petitioner and her former husband, as trustees of the trust, executed a deed transferring the marital home and prior homestead to Petitioner, as a single woman. (P. Ex. 3 and 6) This deed was not recorded until July 1, 2019. On or about February 26, 2018, Zachary Sinberg purchased a new home located at 2131 Frederick Street, in his name as a single man (PAO Ex. 1, p. 8) and applied for a 2019 homestead exemption for this new property. (Ybaceta) Mr. Sinberg did not request a transfer of any portion of the SOH savings to his new homestead (Ybaceta), and no evidence was presented as to whether 50% of the savings had been applied to the subject property since 2007 or 100%. 2020-00587 Page 2 of 8 In December, 2018, the PAO sent a letter to the property address informing the Trust, which remained the record property owner, that the homestead had been inherited from the previous owner and that future application would be necessary in order to retain the exemption. (Ybaceta). A copy of the form letter was included in the PAO’s evidence package. (PAO Ex. 1, p.13) When no application was received or information provided, the PAO removed the exemption for 2019. After discovering that the PAO had removed the homestead exemption on the property, Ms. Donlan applied for homestead on the subject property on February 19, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 14) At the same time, Petitioner requested the transfer of the homestead assessment difference. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 16). The homestead application stated that Petitioner had occupied this property since January 1, 2006. Petitioner and her daughter made this property their permanent residence since its purchase. (Sinberg; Donlan; P. Ex. 22 (Affidavit of Donlan) Petitioner’s driver’s license had been updated on November 30, 2018 and showed 4000 Gulf Shore Blvd., as her permanent residence. (PAO Ex. 1, pp. 20-21) This address was the home of Petitioner’s parents, and Petitioner denied having any knowledge as to this change. (Donlan) The homestead application was granted for 2020 but the request for transfer of the SOH savings was denied on May 29, 2020. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 15) Petitioner requested a copy of the original homestead application by Sinberg and the Trust document provided in support of his application. This documentation was not provided, nor was it presented in PAO’s evidence package. As these documents were not evidence to be presented by the PAO, the Special Magistrate has no authority to provide any relief for the PAO’s refusal to comply with Petitioner’s request. The PAO asserted that the Trust document was a protected document, but it is unclear why a beneficiary of the trust would not otherwise be entitled to the document. As the PAO did not dispute Petitioner’s status as a beneficiary, Petitioner’s testimony, the warranty deed from the trust to Petitioner (P. Ex. 3) and the unexecuted Trust Agreement (P. Ex. 24) were credible and deemed sufficient to establish this fact. Conclusions of Law: The Florida Constitution provides that “every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner. . .shall be exempt from taxation thereon, except assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of twenty-five thousand dollars and, for all levies other than school district levies, on the assessed valuation greater than fifty thousand dollars and up to seventy-five thousand dollars.” Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const. Section 196.031(1)(a) restates this requirement and provides that a “person who, on January 1, has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who in good faith makes the property his or her permanent residence. . . is entitled to an exemption from all taxation. . ..” Because a beneficiary of a revocable trust holds equitable title to the property, a 2020-00587 Page 3 of 8 beneficiary is eligible for a homestead exemption. See ss. 196.031(1), and 196.041(2), Fla. Stat.; Rule 12D-7.011, Fla. Admin. Code. The statutory scheme behind the Save Our Homes (SOH) assessment cap and its transfer is set forth in Section 193.155. The scheme caps the amount of annual increase in assessed value at 3% or the percentage change in the CPI, whichever is lower. The property, however, loses this cap when there is a change of ownership. Section 193.155 (3)(a), Fla. Stat. This same section provides a list of transfers or changes to title that do not constitute a “change of ownership.” These enumerated exceptions, therefore, do not trigger a reset of the assessed value of the property. The issue in this appeal is whether Petitioner was entitled to the SOH cap and, therefore, to having the cap and the accumulated savings restored as a result of her request for the Homestead Assessment Difference. The reason for the PAO’s failure to, in effect, transfer any homestead assessment difference on the subject property to Petitioner is that Petitioner had not signed the original application for homestead in 2007, and, therefore, according to the PAO, had not established her homestead exemption prior to her 2020 application. According to the PAO, Mr. Zinberg applied only in his individual capacity and therefore the homestead exemption belonged to him. (Ybaceta) As a consequence, the PAO argued, the homestead was properly removed when the former husband applied for a new homestead in 2018. Because of the removal of homestead in 2019, there were no SOH savings on the subject property to retain or transfer. Although the original application from 2007 was not presented, Petitioner did not dispute that she had not signed the original application, and the Special Magistrate finds Ms. Ybaceta’s testimony credible in this regard. Petitioner argued that the PAO should have known that Mr. Sinberg signed as trustee, having requested and received a copy of the trust document. However, the capacity in which Mr. Sinberg signed the 2007 application is irrelevant, as only a “natural person” is eligible for the exemption. Section 6(a), Art. VII, Fla. Const.; see also Aronson v. Aronson, 81 So. 3d 515, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Regardless of how Mr. Sinberg may have qualified his signature on the application, he qualified for the exemption as an individual, not a trustee. The evidence was credible and relevant to show that the property was eligible for a homestead exemption either as Petitioner’s permanent residence or that of her daughter. However, the case law is clear that the homestead exemption is not automatic under the Florida Constitution, but, rather, it must be established “in the manner prescribed by law.” Horne v. Markham, 288 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1973)(quoting Art. VII, Section 6, Fla. Const.) Establishment of the homestead exemption requires an application. Id. at p. 198. This requirement likewise exists regarding implementation of the “Save Our Homes” cap. Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2004). In Zingale v. Powell, the husband and wife had maintained their homestead on the property since its purchase but had not actually applied for the exemption until a decade later. When the Powells did apply, the property was reassessed at just value and the taxes increased. The Powells sought to 2020-00587 Page 4 of 8 apply the Save Our Homes cap at the same time they applied for the exemption. They argued that they were entitled to the cap under the Florida Constitution upon meeting the ownership and eligibility requirements for homestead status. The Property Appraiser argued, as in Horne, that the exemption is not automatic but, rather, must be applied for as required by the statute. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the taxpayers’ argument and held that the grant of a homestead exemption is necessary for a homeowner to obtain the baseline assessment for the Save Our Homes cap. Under subsection 4(c)(4), [of Art. VII, Fla. Const.] the Powell’s successful application for the exemption in 2001 constituted an ‘establishment of the homestead,’ which triggered the baseline assessment for the Save Our Homes cap. Zingale, 885 So. 2d at 285. While this line of cases supports the PAO’s position in this regard, Petitioner argued that, in accordance with the holding in Kelly v. Spain, 180 So. 3d 78 (Fla 4th DCA 2015), she established the exemption when the original application was granted and that the property was not subject to a reset under 196.155, Fla. Stat. as no change of ownership has occurred. Kelly v. Spain addressed the situation where a husband had applied for a homestead exemption and then married his wife. He then conveyed the home to himself and his wife as tenants by the entireties. After his death, the surviving spouse never informed the Property Appraiser that she owned the property solely as a result of her husband’s death and continued to enjoy the homestead exemption and the SOH cap without applying for a homestead exemption in her own right. Several years later, having become aware of the husband’s death, the Property Appraiser removed the exemption and back charged the widow for the unpaid taxes resulting from an alleged improper homestead exemption. The question before the Fourth District was whether the husband’s death constituted a change of ownership under s. 196.011, Fla. Stat., which mandated either the reapplication by the wife or removal of the exemption and a reset of the property’s taxable value. Following the reasoning in Zingale v. Powell, the court proceeded to interpret s. 196.011 in pari materia with s. 196.155(3)(a) in order to determine whether the death of the husband constituted a change of ownership. In doing so, the Spain court relied upon s. 196.155(3)(a)2, Fla. Stat., which provides that legal or equitable transfer or change in title between husband and wife, “including a change or transfer to a surviving spouse or a transfer due to a dissolution of marriage,” does not constitute a change of ownership. The court then relied on subsection (8) to conclude that a husband and wife have the benefit of a single homestead application filed by only one of them. Spain, 180 So. 3d at 84. Section 196.155(8) states: “for purposes of this subsection, a husband and wife who owned and both permanently resided on a previous homestead shall each be considered to have received the homestead exemption even though only the husband or the wife applied for the homestead exemption on the previous homestead.” Notwithstanding this provision’s restriction to transfers of the SOH savings to a “new” homestead, which was not the situation in the Spain case, the Spain court ultimately held that the homestead exemption inured to Mrs. Spain, in spite of her lack of application, and that she was entitled to retain the exemption and the SOH cap. In considering the 2020-00587 Page 5 of 8 requirement of re-application in s.196.011(9)(a) Fla. Stat., when the “ownership changes in any manner,[or]when applicant for homestead exemption ceases to use the property as his or her homestead,” the court stated that “[W]e therefore read “applicant” as including both spouses who own a property as tenants by the entirety,” stating further that this reading was reinforced by the treatment accorded spouses in ss. 193.155(3) and (8). The Spain court noted that its finding that there was no change in ownership requiring reapplication was “strengthened” by the characteristics of an estate by the entireties form of ownership. The Court’s use of the word strengthen makes it clear that ownership in the form of an estate by the entireties, although supportive, was not dispositive in its reasoning. Although the exact form of ownership in Spain is distinguishable from the instant case, the Spain court’s statutory construction of s. 196.155, Fla. Stat., has mandatory application in this proceeding. Although the Sinberg Family Trust held legal title to the property, it was not a natural person for purposes of Chapter 196 and therefore not entitled to the exemption. Aronson, 81 So. 3d at 518. The beneficial owners of the property, however, were. In this case, both beneficial owners were married at the time of the initial application for the exemption by Zachary Sinberg. The dispositive question in this appeal is whether this application was sufficient to establish Petitioner’s right to homestead. If so, the PAO erred when removing the exemption and the SOH savings and resetting the property’s assessed value at just value. In this event, Petitioner would be entitled to the SOH cap. If Mr. Sinberg’s application only established his homestead, and not that of his wife, then Petitioner was required to make a new application for the exemption when the former husband applied for homestead exemption on another property. See 196.011(9)(a), Fla. Stat. This Special Magistrate is required to apply any mandatory legal authority in making her decision. Like the Spain situation, resolution in this matter depends on the application of ss. 196.011 and 193.155, Fla. Stat., to the present facts. The facts are similar to Spain insofar as Petitioner’s husband was the only signatory on the application and evidence showed that Petitioner and her daughter permanently resided on the property at the time the property’s assessed value was reset by the PAO. Importantly, both Spain and the instant case concern scenarios where there is no “new” homestead at issue. Rather, the remaining spouse is merely seeking to have the cap restored to the property. Although the cases differ in their procedural posture, the only appreciable substantive difference between Spain and this appeal is the form of ownership held by Petitioner and her spouse. In Spain, the couple held title as tenants by the entireties, a form of ownership that treats the joint ownership as one entity. “An estate by the entireties is generally created at common law by a conveyance or devise of property to a husband and wife; the married couple, by reason of their legal unity by marriage, take the whole estate as a single person with the right of survivorship as an incident thereto.” See Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001), stating that property held as a tenancy by the entireties possesses six characteristics: (1) unity of possession (joint 2020-00587 Page 6 of 8 ownership and control; (2) unity of interest; (3) unity of title (interest originate in the same instrument); (4) unity of time; (5) survivorship; and (6) unity of marriage (parties must be married at the time property became titles in their joint names). Petitioner held the property jointly with her husband as beneficiaries of a family trust. Although trust ownership is legally different from an estate by the entireties, homestead law recognizes that mere legal title is not the only form of ownership. Here, the beneficial ownership of this property shares all the unities cited in Beal. (Although a transfer of the property owned by the trust only required the act of one trustee, neither trustee had the authority to divest the other beneficiary of his or her interest in the homestead.) Two of the guiding principles when construing statutes are: (1) statutes creating exemptions from taxation are strictly construed against the taxpayer, and (2) statutes are to be given their plain and unambiguous meaning. Here, s. 193.155(8), Fla. Stat., says “a husband and wife who owned and both permanently resided on the property” shall be considered to have received one homestead exemption even though only one spouse applied. There is no definition in the tax code of what is meant by husband and wife. Given those words their plain meaning, one can presume it refers to a legally married couple, not a form of title. There is likewise no qualification of the word “owned” as used in s. 193.155(8) or anywhere in s. 193.155 to limit its use to ownership through a particular form of title. The only qualification under the Constitution and the implementing statutes is that ownership applies to both legal and equitable title and that ownership must be based on a recorded instrument. Section 196.012(13), Fla. Stat. Nowhere in s. 193.155(8) does it limit this principle of one singular application for a married couple to only those couples holding title as tenants by the entireties. It is clear that the legislature knows how to define these concepts of ownership when desired. Section 196.031 specifically limits the homestead exemption to $25,000 if “only one of the owners of an estate held by the entireties [i.e. husband or wife] or held jointly with the right of survivorship resides on the property.” Yet the language regarding the application in s.193.155(8) fails to make any distinction as to the manner in which the husband and wife “own” the property. Although the PAO argues that the Spain opinion is limited to the scenario where a couple owns the property as tenants by the entireties, the opinion did not limit its ruling to this fact pattern. Rather, the court based its rationale on the plain language in Subsection (8), the reference to this subsection in s. 193.155(3)(a) and the requirement in s. 196.011(1)(b), Fla. Stat, that an applicant list his or her spouse’s social security number when applying for homestead,thereby indicating that one application applies to both spouses, to justify its conclusion that Mrs. Spain established her homestead when her husband applied prior to the marriage. The overall weight of the credible and relevant evidence showed that Petitioner met the requirements under Spain insofar as she permanently resided on the property and had first beneficial then legal ownership of the property through a conveyance from the Trust. Although the PAO cannot grant an exemption based on an unrecorded instrument, that is not an issue in this appeal as at all times pertinent hereto Petitioner’s interest in the property was represented by a recorded deed. Like Spain, there was no change in 2020-00587 Page 7 of 8 ownership that triggered a new application by Petitioner. Neither the revocation of the trust or the conveyance from the Trust to Petitioner constituted a change in ownership under s.193.155(3)(a)1, Fla. Stat., but rather qualified as an exception under either subsection (3)(a)1.b. as a transfer between legal and equitable title without the addition of another person applying for homestead or (3)(a)2., as a transfer of equitable title between husband and wife. Certainly the decision in Kelly v. Spain raises some question about its general application to situations such as the one presented by this appeal, but there is no doubt that the court applied the joint application language of s. 193.155(8) in a situation where the remaining spouse lost her homestead exemption and SOH savings due to a solo application by her husband. As such, this Special Magistrate is compelled to apply this legal precedent to the facts presented in this appeal. As a final matter, the PAO cited to s.194.171(2), Fla. Stat., which imposes a 60-day claim period for all assessment challenges after certification of the tax roll or a VAB decision regarding such challenge. Because the homestead exemption was removed in 2019 and the assessed value of the property reset as of January 1 of that year, Petitioner’s challenge is made outside this 60 day period and arguably barred. However, the First District in Genesis Ministries, Inc. v. Brown, 186 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) held that an assessment challenge will not be barred by this section if the Property Appraiser fails to give the taxpayer proper notice of the action and her right to appeal. In this case, a letter was sent to Petitioner in December, 2018, advising her that the exemption would be removed unless she made application, due to her having “inherited” the exemption. This notice, however, fails to meet the requirements set forth in Genesis Ministries. Consequently, Petitioner’s claim is not time barred. Petitioner has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s removal of the Save Our Homes cap and reset of the assessed value of the Property at just value was wrong. The evidence admitted in this case was relevant and credible to show that Petitioner was married to Mr. Sinberg as the time of application, that she had established her entitlement to homestead exemption through the application of her husband, that she permanently resided on the property at all times pertinent hereto, and that there no change of ownership occurred sufficient to trigger the reset provided in s. 193.155(3), Fla. Stat. The greater weight of all credible and relevant evidence was sufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden in this case, and, based on the legal precedent of the Kelly v. Spain opinion, the Special Magistrate recommends that the petition be granted and the SOH savings restored to the property. 2020-00587 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00588 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00588 00724560004 ANDER SOLUPE 6822 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114✔ ✔ 7,039,956.00 7,039,956.00 7,039,956.00 7,039,956.00 7,039,956.00 7,039,956.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,039,956.00 7,039,956.00 7,039,956.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/10/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00588: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $7,039,956. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property as a five building self-storage facility, containing 542 units. One building is two story and contains the office with a manager’s apartment on the second floor. The remaining buildings are one story self-storage units with pull-up doors. The total building area is 69,359-sf, one building containing 10,948-sf is not air conditioned, the remaining buildings are air conditioned. The land size is 155,800-sf or 3.576 acres. The building was built in 2003. The property sold in January 2018 for $8,065,000. The properties are located at 6822 Collier Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00588 Page 2 of 8 PAO presented a report containing 125 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation, with a land sales chart, and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 11 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 2/16 to 4/20. The land sales range in size from 35,500-sf to 209,604-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $8.17/sf to $29.91/sf. The mean of all the sales is $19.19/sf and the median is $21.89/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $24.00/sf or $3,739,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $3,969,158, impact fees are estimated at $84,773, the land value is estimated at $3,739,000 for a total cost of $7,793,000 rounded. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 9 sales of older style self- storage facilities (typically one story in height) in Naples and Bonita Springs. The sales occurred from 1/15 to 5/19. The sales range in building size from 10,852-sf to 126,312-sf , with 308-1250 units; the land size for these sales ranges from 53,840-sf to 655,142-sf; with a land to building ratio of 13% to 45%, the subject is at 45%. The buildings were built from 1973 to 2003. The sales range from $69.00/sf to $158.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $111.00/sf and a median of $113.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $120.00/sf of building area including land or $8,323,000 rounded. The price per unit ranges from $7,370 to $14,880/unit with a mean of $11,774 and a mean of $12,423/ unit. PAO estimated $15,000/unit or $8,130,000 rounded. PAO provided 4 additional sales of newer multi-story climate-controlled facilities, located in Naples and Bonita Springs. The sales occurred from 1/18 to 8/19. The sales range in building size from 87,287-sf to 129,930-sf and 750-1001 units; the land size for these sales ranges from 103,237-sf to 246,549-sf; with a land to building ratio of 35% to 2020-00588 Page 3 of 8 92%, the subject is at 45%. The buildings were built from 2008 to 2017. The sales range from $134.69/sf to $267.15/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $224.10/sf and a range of $17,483 to $38,929/unit. PAO reconciled a value by the Sales Comparison Approach at $8,200,000 rounded. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided 6 confidential (from property owners) self-storage rent comparables, located in Naples. The rents range from $17.60/sf to $20.52/sf with a mean of $18.85; the effective rents (discounts for free rent), range from $15.74 to $20.52/sf. with a mean of $17.30. PAO also provided 13 advertised rents from competing self-storage properties; the overall average effective rents range from $13.23/sf to $29.37/sf with a mean of $18.91/sf. PAO provided 7 rents for non-climate-controlled storage units in Naples. The overall average effective rents range from $7.08/sf to $22.56/sf with an overall effective mean rent of $12.50/sf. PAO provided 5 rents of outside open storage in Naples. The overall average effective rents range from $3.32/sf to $7.20/sf with an overall average of $5.67 and an effective rent of $5.33/sf. The gross square footage of the climate-controlled buildings 2,3,4 is 56,031-sf and the leasable area of these buildings is 47,626-sf. PAO estimated a rent of $18.00/sf of leasable area or $857,268; there is 2,380-sf of retail office space, with a leasable area of 1,190-sf of climate-controlled space and PAO estimated a rent of $18.00/sf of leasable space or $21,420. The non-climate-controlled storage building has a gross area of 10,948-sf and a net rentable area of 9,306-sf; PAO estimated a rent of $12.50/sf of leasable area or $116,325. The 12 outside spaces have an area of 2,880-sf, PAO estimated a rent of $1.00/sf or $2,880. The total income is estimated at $997,893 or $16.36/sf on an area of 61,002-sf. Other income is reported at $59,861, for a total gross income of $1,057,754 or $17.34/sf. PAO provided vacancy support, from confidential sources in Collier County and CoStar. The self-storage vacancies range from 6.25% to 15%. PAO concluded a vacancy and collection loss of 10% or $105,775. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The operating expense ratios, (expenses divided by EGI) and the expenses per square foot range from 28% to 55% with a mean of 37.67% (excluding real estate taxes) PAO used an expense ratio of 35% of effective gross income (EGI) or $333,193 or $5.46/sf of leasable area. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $618,786.00 or $10.14/sf. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived 2020-00588 Page 4 of 8 from 6 sales of self-storage facilities located in Collier and Lee Counties; the sales were reported by CoStar from March 2016 to May 2019. The cap rates range from 4.00% to 8.00% with a mean of 6.01% and a median of 5.45%. PAO provided the cap rate for self- storage facilities taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Realty Rates Investor Survey, Cushman & Wakefield (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources for self-storage facilities ranges from 4.50% to 7.00% with an average of 7.11%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.00% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. The NOI of $618,786.00 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $8,594,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion is: $7,039,956. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00588 Page 5 of 8 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 22-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, aerial, property summary report from CoStar with photograph, property tax bill for 2020. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income. PET provided a profit and loss statement. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided the asking rents at the subject by unit size, PET provided market support for the vacancy rate, and capitalization rate (cap rate). PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach only on the self-storage units based on the actual income at the subject. 2020-00588 Page 6 of 8 The advertised rents, for self-storage units, at the subject range from $27.00/unit to $82.00/unit per month, with one-month free rent. PET used the actual gross rent of $838,205 or $12.09/sf based on 69,359-sf. PET added other income of $59,861 and deducted for discounts & coupons of $49,603. The total income is $848,462 or $12.23/ sf. No vacancy was deducted, the gross income accounts for the vacancy. PET estimated the operating expenses, from the profit and loss statement at 45.60% of EGI or $5.58/sf or $386,930.00 The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $461,533. PET provided support for the cap rate from national surveys, Marcus & Millichap and Realty Rates.com, the surveys indicate a cap rate range of 7.00% to 8.78%. PET used a cap rate of 6% and loaded a mill rate of 1.103 for a total cap rate of 7.88%. The NOI of $461,533 capitalized at 7.88% indicates a value of $5,856,387, less 15% cost of sales indicates a value of $5,270,749 or $75.99/sf. As rebuttal, PAO indicated the subject sold in January 2018 for $8,065,000, and PAO provided 9 sales of self-storage facilities, PET did not provide any sales. PET developed the Income Approach only, and used the actual income for one year only. PET’s cap rate is derived from a national survey for the southern region states, of which Florida is one state, PAO provided cap rates from local sales in Naples. PAO indicated PET overstated operating expenses. PAO provided a Fee Simple value based on market rents, PET provided a Leased Fee value based on actual rents. PAO indicated that for real estate taxation purposes, the Fee Simple estate is the interest to be valued. As rebuttal, PET noted that the subject is an older facility and that free rent is offered at the subject, PET noted this facility has single story buildings and may not be the highest and best use of the site, as newer facilities are two-story. PET noted that the sale of the subject does not make a market and that the value may have been overstated. PET indicated the units are rented on a monthly basis and the value derived from the actual income of the property provides a Fee Simple interest. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PAO provided several improved sales, of self-storage facilities, in the local market, that provide a good indication of value. PET provided the Income Approach only, based on actual rents for one year only, the gross income fluctuates from year to year and an average of several years would be better. PET’s cap rate is from national sources, while PAO provided support from local sales. The sale of the subject in January 2018, although two years old, provides a good indication of value for the subject, as property values have increased since the sale. 2020-00588 Page 7 of 8 PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00588: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00588 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00594 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00594 26095000361 ANDER SOLUPE 3808 WHITE LAKEBLVD NAPLES, FL 34117✔ ✔ 2,124,480.00 2,124,480.00 2,124,480.00 1,392,420.00 1,392,420.00 1,392,420.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,392,420.00 1,392,420.00 1,392,420.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/14/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00594: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. Petition number 2020- 00594 and petition number 2020-00615 were heard as one petition. The property is developed with a hotel called Fairfield Inn and Suites. The land upon which the hotel is built is leased land. These two petitions represent the land and the building. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows: Petition # 2020-00594 $2,124,480 (land) Petition # 2020-00615 $7,809,228 (building) Total $9,933,708 The value has not changed, for either parcel, since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a 4-story limited service hotel with 109 rooms, branded as Fairfield Inn & Suites. Amenities include limited dining, business center, fitness center, meeting rooms, laundry on-site and outdoor pool. The total building area is 58,344-sf; the land size is 177,040-sf or 4.064 acres. The building was built in 2009. The property sold in October 2015 for a combined land and building price of $9,938,500. The properties are located at 3808 White Lake Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property 2020-00594 Page 2 of 10 appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 98 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, building sketch, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; market value of tangible personal property (TPP), from Collier County Property Appraiser; article on the new Collier County Sports Complex (in close proximity to the subject); individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales, with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate and operating expenses; property record card. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO stated that the subject is located in close proximity to the new Collier County Sports Complex, which will benefit the hotel industry in the area of the subject for housing of out of town teams and guests. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 16 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 10/17 to 1/20. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 193,406-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $13.71/sf to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.40/sf and the median is $21.93/sf. Four of the sales had a proposed hotel use, these sales range from $18.00- $34.00/sf with a mean of $27.00/sf and a median of $22.00/sf. Two sales are located in close proximity to the subject and sold in the range of $14.00 to $17.00/sf; both lots were vacant and wooded at time of sale. PAO reconciled a value at $16.00/sf or $2,830,000 rounded. 2020-00594 Page 3 of 10 PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $7,061,736, impact fees are estimated at $524,000, the land value is estimated at $2,830,000 for a total cost of $10,420,000 rounded. Contributory Value of Assets (TPP and BEV (intangible personal property)- PAO provided a Cost Approach value for the going concern of the hotel, which comprises three elements: real property, tangible personal property (TTP or FF&E) and intangible value contributions ( business enterprise value). The 2020 market value of the TTP is $495,715 per Collier County Property Appraiser, this value is based on the original cost information for the TPP that was supplied by the owner and depreciated/adjusted to current market value. PAO has considered the TPP value at $500,000 rounded. The intangible personal property (BEV) is estimated at $600,000. PAO estimated BEV by deducting the cost approach value of the real estate and the TPP from the sales comparison and the income approach (further in the report). The extracted BEV from the two approaches to value provides a reasonable estimate. The BEV estimate from the Sales Comparison Approach is $743,000, the BEV from the Income Approach is $457,000, the average of these two values is $600,000 rounded. For the cost approach the BEV is added to the value and in the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach the value is deducted. Summary Cost Approach: The total value of the subject by the Cost Approach-Going Concern is $10,420,000, plus $500,000 for tangible personal property (TTP) and $600,000 for intangible property (BEV) for a total of $11,520,000 or $197.45/sf or $105,688/room. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 24 sales of hotels in the state of Florida. The sales range in building size from 37,372-sf to 589,000-sf with a mean of 110,037-sf and a median of 75,783-sf; and 68 to 742 rooms. The buildings were built from 1974 to 2015. The sales range from $89.00/sf to $421.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $206.00/sf and a median of $206.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $58,824 to $258,503 with a mean of $127,854 and a mean of $124,796. The occupancy ranges from 68% to 87.90% with an average of 77.76% and a median of 76.85%. The average daily rate (ADR) ranges from $84.52 to $195.00 with a mean of $118.95 and a median of $116.54. The revenue per available room (RevPAR) ranges from $68.00 to $148.20 with a mean of $92.32 and a median of $90.09. The gross room revenue multiplier (GRRM) ranges from 2.13 to 4.96 with a mean of 3.69 and a median of 3.60. PAO provided 13 additional sales in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties. The 13 sales range in building size from 31,808-sf to 84,934-sf with a mean of 56,439-sf and a median of 53,660-sf; and 68 to 148 rooms. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2009. The sales range from $112.00/sf to $342.00/sf of building area including land, with a 2020-00594 Page 4 of 10 mean of $217.00/sf and a median of $213.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $53,774 to $184,314 with a mean of $120,691 and a mean of $116,364. No information on the occupancy, ADR, RevPAR and GRRM were available for these 13 sales. PAO reconciled a value based on a RevPAR calculation at $106,000/room x 109 rooms = $11,554,000. PAO estimated the GRRM at 3.57 x gross room revenue from the income approach of $3,266,746 = $11,662,284 or $107,000/room rounded x 109 rooms = $11,663,000 Summary Sales Comparison Approach: Estimated value by Sales Comparison Approach $11,663,000, less TPP or $500,000, less intangible property of $600,000 = $10,563,000, Fee Simple Value (Real Estate only) or $96,908/room. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided support from the STR Trend Report (a survey for hotels) for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR. The occupancy for central Florida and Naples submarket for upscale hotels ranges from 64.1% to 68.9%, the ADR ranges from $116.06 to $241.99/room and the RevPAR ranges from $80.00 to $156.20/ room. The subject’s 3-yr historical average for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR is calculated at 65.8%, $119.18 and $78.40 respectively. PAO estimated an occupancy of 69%, ADR of $119.00 and RevPAR of $82.11 for the subject. The total room income is estimated at $3,266,746. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $65,335. Total revenue is estimated at $3,332,081. PAO provided support for operating expenses from 24 hotels located throughout Florida. The operating expense ratio (expenses divided by gross income) ranges from 58.12% to 74.67% with an average of 66.70% and a median of 66.58%. Limited service properties expense ratios range from 58% to 75% with an average of 66%. 2020 STR survey reports 62.2% for the south Atlantic Region and 58.1% for upscale hotels. PAO has estimated the operating expense ratio at 68.6%, which includes undistributed expenses, management fee and fixed expenses or $2,285,415. The net operating income NOI is $1,046,666. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 24 hotel sales in Florida. The cap rates range from 7.50% to 10.70% with a mean of 8.77% and a median of 8.65%. PAO’s local sales indicate a cap rate range from 7.5% to 9.38% with an average of 8.47% and a mean of 8.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for hotels taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 12.00% with an average of 8.04%. PAO used a cap rate of 8.00% and loaded the mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 9.20%. 2020-00594 Page 5 of 10 The NOI of $1,046,666 capitalized at 9.20% indicates a value of $11,377,000 rounded. Summary Income Approach: Estimated value by Income Approach $11,377,000 rounded, less TPP of $500,000 and less intangible personal property of $600,000 for a value of $10,277,000 for real estate only. PAO’s just value conclusion: Petition # 2020-00594 $2,124,480 (land) Petition # 2020-00615 $7,809,228 (building) Total $9,933,708 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00594 Page 6 of 10 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 38-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, tax bill for 2020, photograph of the subject and location map. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and market proforma. PET provided a summary of income and expenses for the subject. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided the STR report for January 17, 2020. PET provided market support for the capitalization rate (cap rate), operating expenses and management and franchise fees. PET provided an article, from Hotel News Now, on reserves. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00594 Page 7 of 10 PET developed the Income Approach only. PAO provided a value based on actual income generated at the subject in the year 2019. The occupancy was 62.2% and the ADR was $115.66/room, and RevPAR was $71.98/room. The total room income is estimated at $2,863,603. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $43,665. Total revenue is estimated at $2,907,268. Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated total expenses at $2,068,640 or 71% of income. The net operating income NOI is $838,628. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $838,628 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $8,262,787 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $7,023,000. PET provided a market proforma Income Approach. The STR report for the subject was provided by PET and indicates an occupancy rate of 62.2%, an ADR of $120.33/room and a RevPAR of $115.66/room. PET estimated an ADR of $120.33 for the subject for a gross room revenue of $4,787,329. PET added other income of 1% of $47,873 for a total revenue of $4,835,202. PET estimated a vacancy of 47% of total income or $2,272,545. The effective gross income is estimated at $2,562,657 or $64.41/room/day. PAO/s equivalent is $83.75/ room/day Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020 . PET estimated total expenses at $1,768,233 or 69% of income. The net operating income NOI is $794,424. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $794,424 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $7,827,251 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $6,653,000. 2020-00594 Page 8 of 10 PET value conclusion for both parcels $6,653,000 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET developed the Income Approach only, and used the actual income for one year only, additional years would be better, as a history of hotel income is relevant. There have been new hotels in the area and the occupancy of the subject has dropped slightly, however, with the opening of the sports complex, all the hotels in the area will benefit. The average occupancy at the subject over the past 3 years has been about 64%, PET used a lower occupancy at 62.2% on actual income and 53% on the market proforma. PET did not provide analysis of TTP and going concern. As rebuttal, PET indicated that looking at the future income based on current economic conditions, and the positive outlook of the Sports Center is irrelevant. PET indicated that PAO’s effective gross income is at $83.75/room and PET’s effective gross income is at $64.41/room substantially higher than PET’s. PET indicated the cap rates provided by PAO for sales in the local market are more in line with PET’s cap rate estimate. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value and provided analysis of the tangible and intangible property. PET provided the Income Approach only, based on actual rents for one year; the total revenue fluctuates from year to year and an average of several years would provide better data. PET did not address the tangible and intangible property separately. Both PAO and PET deducted operating expenses of 69% of total revenue, however PET’s total revenue and average daily rate are lower than PAO’s. PAO provided good support for the cap rate, from sales in Collier and Lee counties; PAO estimated a cap rate based on the location of the subject. PET’s cap rate is from national surveys with no cap rates in Collier or Lee County. PET’s market pro forma at 53% occupancy is not supported and considered understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00594: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. 2020-00594 Page 9 of 10 In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00594 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00595 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00595 26095000387 ANDER SOLUPE 3798 WHITE LAKEBLVD NAPLES, FL 34117✔ ✔ 2,378,376.00 2,378,376.00 2,378,376.00 1,558,828.00 1,558,828.00 1,558,828.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,558,828.00 1,558,828.00 1,558,828.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/14/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00595: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. Petition number 2020- 00595 and petition number 2020-00614 were heard as one petition. The property is developed with a hotel called Spring Hill Suites. The land upon which the hotel is built is leased land. These two petitions represent the land and the building. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows: Petition # 2020-00595 $2,378,376 Petition # 2020-00614 $7,709,121 Total $10,087,497 The value has not changed, for either parcel, since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a 4-story limited service hotel with 102 rooms, branded as Springhill Suites. Amenities include limited dining, fitness center, meeting rooms, laundry on-site and outdoor pool. The total building area is 58,556-sf; the land size is 198,198-sf or 4.55 acres. The building was built in 2008. The property sold in October 2015 for a combined land and building price of $9,224,100. The properties are located at 3798 White Lake Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property 2020-00595 Page 2 of 10 appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 99 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, building sketch, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; market value of tangible personal property (TPP), from Collier County Property Appraiser ($517,986); article on the new Collier County Sports Complex (in close proximity to the subject); individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales, with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate and operating expenses; property record card. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO stated that the subject is located in close proximity to the new Collier County Sports Complex, which will benefit the hotel industry in the area of the subject for housing of out of town teams and guests. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 16 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 10/17 to 1/20. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 193,406-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $13.71/sf to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.40/sf and the median is $21.93/sf. Four of the sales had a proposed hotel use, these sales range from $18.00- $34.00/sf with a mean of $27.00/sf and a median of $22.00/sf. Two sales are located in close proximity to the subject and sold in the range of $14.00 to $17.00/sf; both lots were vacant and wooded at time of sale. PAO reconciled a value at $16.00/sf or $3,170,000 rounded. 2020-00595 Page 3 of 10 PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $6,970,494, impact fees are estimated at $491,000, the land value is estimated at $3,170,000 for a total cost of $10,630,000 rounded. Contributory Value of Assets (TPP and BEV (intangible personal property)- PAO provided a Cost Approach value for the going concern of the hotel, which comprises three elements: real property, tangible personal property (TTP or FF&E) and intangible value contributions ( business enterprise value). The 2020 market value of the TTP is $517,986 per Collier County Property Appraiser, this value is based on the original cost information for the TPP that was supplied by the owner and depreciated/adjusted to current market value. PAO has considered the TPP value at $520,000 rounded. The intangible personal property (BEV) is estimated at $590,000. PAO estimated BEV by deducting the cost approach value of the real estate and the TPP from the sales comparison and the income approach (further in the report). The extracted BEV from the two approaches to value provides a reasonable estimate. The BEV estimate from the Sales Comparison Approach is $782,506, the BEV from the Income Approach is $395,506, the average of these two values is $590,000 rounded. For the cost approach the BEV is added to the value and in the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach the value is deducted. Summary Cost Approach: The total value of the subject by the Cost Approach-Going Concern is $10,630,000, plus $520,000 for tangible personal property (TTP) and $590,000 for intangible property (BEV) for a total of $11,740,000 or $200.49/sf or $115,098/room. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 24 sales of hotels in the state of Florida. The sales range in building size from 37,372-sf to 589,000-sf with a mean of 110,037-sf and a median of 75,783-sf; and 68 to 742 rooms. The buildings were built from 1974 to 2015. The sales range from $89.00/sf to $421.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $206.00/sf and a median of $206.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $58,824 to $258,503 with a mean of $127,854 and a mean of $124,796. The occupancy ranges from 68% to 87.90% with an average of 77.76% and a median of 76.85%. The average daily rate (ADR) ranges from $84.52 to $195.00 with a mean of $118.95 and a median of $116.54. The revenue per available room (RevPAR) ranges from $68.00 to $148.20 with a mean of $92.32 and a median of $90.09. The gross room revenue multiplier (GRRM) ranges from 2.13 to 4.96 with a mean of 3.69 and a median of 3.60. PAO provided 13 additional sales in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties. The 13 sales range in building size from 31,808-sf to 84,934-sf with a mean of 56,439-sf and a median of 53,660-sf; and 68 to 148 rooms. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2009. The sales range from $112.00/sf to $342.00/sf of building area including land, with a 2020-00595 Page 4 of 10 mean of $217.00/sf and a median of $213.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $53,774 to $184,314 with a mean of $120,691 and a mean of $116,364. No information on the occupancy, ADR, RevPAR and GRRM were available for these 13 sales. PAO reconciled a value based on a RevPAR calculation at $125,000/room x 102 rooms = $12,750,000. PAO estimated the GRRM at 3.6 x gross room revenue of $3,315,704 = $11,936,534/102 rooms = $107,000/room rounded x 102 rooms = $11,934,000 Summary Sales Comparison Approach: Estimated value by Sales Comparison Approach $11,934,000, less TPP or $520,000, less intangible property of $590,000 = $10,824,000, Fee Simple Value (Real Estate only) or $106,118/room. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided support from the STR Trend Report (a survey for hotels) for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR. The occupancy for central Florida and Naples submarket for upscale hotels ranges from 64.1% to 73.5%, the ADR ranges from $131.70 to $311.07/room and the RevPAR ranges from $84.48 to $228.76/ room. The subject’s 3-yr historical average for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR is calculated at 73.8%, $119.45 and $88.11 respectively. PAO estimated an occupancy of 73% ADR of $122.00 and RevPAR of $89.06 for the subject. The total room income is estimated at $3,315,704. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $66,314. Total revenue is estimated at $3,382,018. PAO provided support for operating expenses from 24 hotels located throughout Florida. The operating expense ratio (expenses divided by gross income) ranges from 58.12% to 74.67% with an average of 66.70% and a median of 66.58%. Limited service properties expense ratios range from 58% to 75% with an average of 66%. 2020 STR survey reports 62.2% for the south Atlantic Region and 58.1% for upscale hotels. PAO has estimated the operating expense ratio at 69%, which includes undistributed expenses, management fee and fixed expenses or $2,319,667. The net operating income NOI is $1,062,351. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 24 hotel sales in Florida. The cap rates range from 7.50% to 10.70% with a mean of 8.77% and a median of 8.65%. PAO’s local sales indicate a cap rate range from 7.5% to 9.38% with an average of 8.47% and a mean of 8.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for hotels taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 12.00% with an average of 8.04%. PAO used a cap rate of 8.00% and loaded the mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 9.20%. 2020-00595 Page 5 of 10 The NOI of $1,062,351capitalized at 9.20% indicates a value of $11,547,000 rounded. Summary Income Approach: Estimated value by Income Approach $11,547,000 rounded, less TPP of $520,000 and less intangible personal property of $590,000 for a value of $10,437,000 for real estate only. PAO’s just value conclusion: Petition # 2020-00595 $2,378,376 (land) Petition # 2020-00614 $7,709,121 (building) Total $10,087,497 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00595 Page 6 of 10 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 38-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, tax bill for 2020, photograph of the subject and location map. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and market proforma. PET provided a summary of income and expenses for the subject. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided the STR report for January 17, 2020. PET provided market support for the capitalization rate (cap rate), operating expenses and management and franchise fees. PET provided an article, from Hotel News Now, on reserves. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00595 Page 7 of 10 PET developed the Income Approach only. PAO provided a value based on actual income generated at the subject in the year 2019. The occupancy was 68.2% and the ADR was $121.83/room, and RevPAR was $83.12/room. The total room income is estimated at $3,094,683. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $66,354. Total revenue is estimated at $3,161,037. Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated total expenses at $2,167,001 or 69% of income. The net operating income NOI is $994,036. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $994,036 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $9,793,974 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $8,325,000. PET provided a market proforma Income Approach. The STR report for the subject was provided by PET and indicates an occupancy rate of 68.2%, an ADR of $121.83/room and a RevPAR of $83.12/room. PET estimated an ADR of $128.13 for the subject for a gross room revenue of $4,770,280. PET added other income of 1% of $47,703 for a total revenue of $4,817,983. PET estimated a vacancy of 45% of total income or $2,163,274. The effective gross income is estimated at $2,654,708 or $71.30/room/day. PAO/s equivalent is $90.84/ room/day Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020 . PET estimated total expenses at $1,831,749 or 69% of income. The net operating income NOI is $822,960. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $822,960 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $8,108,408 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $6,892,000. 2020-00595 Page 8 of 10 PET value conclusion for both parcels $6,892,000 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET developed the Income Approach only, and used the actual income for one year only, additional years would be better, as a history of hotel income is relevant. There have been new hotels in the area and the occupancy of the subject has dropped slightly, however, with the opening of the sports complex, all the hotels in the area will benefit. The average occupancy at the subject over the past 3 years has been about 73%, PET used a lower occupancy at 68.2% on actual income and 55% on the market proforma. PET did not provide analysis of TTP and going concern. As rebuttal, PET indicated that looking at the future income based on current economic conditions, and the positive outlook of the Sports Center is irrelevant. PET indicated that PAO’s RevPAR is at $89.06 and PET’s RevPAR is at $83.12 substantially higher than PET’s. PET indicated PAO’s NOI is at $1,062,351 and PET’s NOI is at $994,036, noting that PAO’s expenses are understated. PET indicated the cap rates provided by PAO for sales in the local market are more in line with PET’s cap rate estimate. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value and provided analysis of the tangible and intangible property. PET provided the Income Approach only, based on actual rents for one year, the total revenue fluctuates from year to year and an average of several years would provide better data. PET did not address the tangible and intangible property separately as did PAO. Both PAO and PET deducted operating expenses of 69% of total revenue, however PET’s total revenue and average daily rate are lower than PAO’s. PAO provided good support for the cap rate, from sales in Collier and Lee counties; PAO estimated a cap rate based on the location of the subject. PET’s cap rate is from national surveys with no cap rates in Collier or Lee County. PET’s market pro forma at 55% occupancy is not supported and considered understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00595: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted 2020-00595 Page 9 of 10 appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00595 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00606 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00606 60204200044 ANDER SOLUPE 7550 MISSION HILLS DR NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 13,967,263.00 13,967,263.00 13,967,263.00 12,249,508.00 12,249,508.00 12,249,508.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,249,508.00 12,249,508.00 12,249,508.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/10/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00606: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. Petition number 2020-00606 and petition number 2020-00607 were heard as one petition. The property is developed with a retail neighborhood shopping center with an adjoining vacant land outparcel. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows: Petition # 2020-00606 $13,967,263 Retail Center Petition # 2020-00607 $334,541. Outparcel Total $14,301,804 The value has not changed, for either parcel, since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story, class C-average to good, retail center, anchored by Winn-Dixie grocery store and Anytime Fitness. The total building area is 84,474-sf. The land size for the retail center comprises 790,947-sf or 18.157 acres of which 352,734 is developable land and the remaining land is preserve-not developable. The outparcel contains 27,878-sf. The property was developed in 2005. PAO indicated the subject sold in October 2016 for $17,000,000. The property was reported at 97% occupancy at the time of sale. The property is located at 7550 Mission Hill Drive, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty 2020-00606 Page 2 of 10 of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 114 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, subject exhibits, with photographs of the subject, aerials and site maps, building sketch, regional and neighborhood market analysis, description of the site and improvements, market analysis, highest and best use analysis. PAO included a land valuation, with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach, with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO provided general assumption and limiting conditions, the deed with the legal description, the listing for the sale of the subject in 2016, an article on the closing of Winn-Dixie stores dated 11/16, impact fees, description sheets of each land and improved sales with photographs, market support for cap rates and the property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2016 to January 2020. The land sales range in size from 193,406-sf to 2,275,977-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 13,600 to 46,000 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $6.05 to $34.82/sf. The mean of all the sales is $15.17/sf and the median is $10.95/ sf. PAO reconciled at $11.97/sf on 818,825-sf for a value of $9,800,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $8,242,342 plus impact fees estimated at $1,432,000 plus the land value estimated at $9,800,000 for a total cost of $19,474,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 16 sales of properties in 2020-00606 Page 3 of 10 Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from May 2017 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 46,400-sf to 175,504-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 4.18 acres to 21.87 acres with a land to building ratio ranging from 9% to 32%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 10%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2016. The sales range from $79.00 to $402.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $211.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $192.00/sf of building area including land. The sales in Collier County range from $154.00 to $402.00/sf with a mean of $260.00 and a median of $248.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $220.00/sf of building area including land or $18,584,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rents in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties of community, neighborhood, freestanding and power centers, with anchor tenants. The building sizes range from 21,000-sf to 62,000-sf; the rents range from $5.00 to $19.33/sf with a mean of $11.77/sf and a median of $11.02/sf on a gross basis, (where the owner pays the majority of the expenses). PAO estimated a gross rent for the anchor space at $13.00/sf gross on 50,314-sf or $654,082. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, for junior anchor space in neighborhood, community and strip centers; the unit sizes range from 7,000-sf to 21,000- sf; the rents range from $9.61 to $26.05/sf with a mean of $15.54/sf and a median of $15.60/sf on a gross basis. PAO estimated a gross rent for the junior anchor tenants at $18.00/sf gross on 5,754-sf or $103,572. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, for In-Line space, in neighborhood and community centers with an anchor tenant; the unit sizes range from 840-sf to 10,000-sf; the rents range from $25.80 to $69.50/sf with a mean of $39.90/sf and a median of $38.95/sf on a gross basis. PAO provided 14 rent listings of in-line retail space in Naples. The units range from 985-sf to 12,800-sf with a mean of 4,798-sf and a median of 3,168-sf. The rents range from $15.00 to $39.34/sf with a mean of $25.81/sf and a median $26.28/sf. The CAM ranges from $5.13/sf to $16.35/sf with a mean of $7.92/sf and a median of $7.49/sf. The gross rent equivalent ranges from $20.25/sf to $55.69/sf with a mean of $33.98/sf and a median of $33.78/sf. PAO estimated a gross rent for the in-line tenants at $31.00/sf gross on 28,406-sf or $880,586. PAO estimated a total Gross rent (includes all common area maintenance (CAM) for the subject of $1,638,240 or $19.39/sf average. PAO provided vacancy and collection loss support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 4.6% to 6.90% with a 3-yr average of 6.00% and an average for 2019 of 6.32%. PAO indicated the average occupancy at the subject is 98%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy and collection loss of 5% or $81,912. 2020-00606 Page 4 of 10 The effective gross income (EGI) is $1,556,328. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 15 commercial strip, neighborhood and community centers; the centers range in size from 17,000-sf to 245,000-sf with a mean of 62,357-sf and a median of 44,500-sf. The effective gross income (EGI) for these centers ranges from $9.44/sf to $32.26/sf with a mean of $18.51 to $17.09/sf; operating expenses range from $1.83/sf to $7.73/sf with a mean of $5.01/sf to $5.45/sf; the operating expense ratio ranges from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% and a median of 27.2%; expenses have been adjusted to exclude real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. The operating income ranges from $7.44 to $29.14/sf; the operating expenses range from $2.44/sf to $9.40/sf. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $389,082 or $4.61/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,167,246. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 9 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 5.8% to 7.96% with a mean of 6.46% and a median of 6.46% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.26-$26.01/sf). PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.35% to 9.33% with an average of 6.86%. PAO provided a cap rate analysis based on the Band of Investment method, the cap rate indicated by this method is 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. The NOI of $1,167,246 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $16,212,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: Petition # 2020-00606 $13,967,263 Retail Center Petition # 2020-00607 $334,541. Outparcel Total $14,301,804 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). 2020-00606 Page 5 of 10 The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. 2020-00606 Page 6 of 10 The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 48-page, which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, subject tax bill and aerials. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and a market proforma. PET provided the rent roll for the subject, comparable asking rents with photos and details on each comparable center. PET provided market support for the vacancy rate, and capitalization rate (cap rate). PET provided the overall construction summary for Naples and North Naples. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach using actual income and expenses at the subject. The total potential revenue includes all revenues and common area maintenance (CAM) as well as other income of $1,603,093. No vacancy and collection loss was deducted. Total expenses include CAM, non- recoverable CAM, insurance, other expense, management fee and reserves of $418,995 or 26.14% of income or $4.92/sf were deducted. The NOI is estimated at $1,184,098. The NOI is capitalized at a cap rate of 8% with an added mill rate of 1.139% for a total cap rate of 9.14%; the indicated value is $12,956,520. The cost of sales at 15% was deducted for a just value of $11,010,000. PET developed the Income Approach using market rents. PET provided 17 rents in Collier and Lee Counties located in community and neighborhood centers, most of which are anchored by a grocery store. The centers range in size 62,935-sf to 161,164-sf and were built from 1996 to 2014; the rents range from $14.53/sf to $29.02/sf triple net. The rents at the subject, from the rent roll, indicate Winn Dixie renewed their lease in 2018 to 2022; this 50,991-sf space is rented at $10.98/sf, plus CAM. Anytime Fitness, occupies 5,795-sf and the rent is $11.27/sf, plus CAM. There is one tenant occupying 1,429-sf and paying $41.89/sf, this is the highest rent in the complex. The remaining spaces range from 1,398-sf to 3,602-sf and the rent for these spaces ranges from $16.70/ 2020-00606 Page 7 of 10 sf to $28.64/sf with the majority of the rents being in the $20.00 to $22.00/sf range, plus CAM. For the Anchor Tenant, PET estimated a rent of $11.00/sf with a $2.50/sf CAM on 50,991-sf for a total rent of $688,379.00. The junior tenant Anytime Fitness was estimated at $15.00/sf on 5,795-sf , with a CAM of $3.00 for a total rent of $104,310. The Blue Monkey Bar and Grill at 3,602-sf was estimated at $20.00/sf, plus $5.00/sf CAM or $90,050. The total rent for these two tenants is $194,360. The in-line space of 24,690-sf was estimated at $23.00/sf. with s $5.50 CAM or $703,665. The Gross income is estimated at $1,586,404. PET provided support for the vacancy rate from CoStar market survey, which indicates a vacancy in North Naples of 5.5%. PET used a vacancy of 5% on the anchor and junior anchor tenants and 5.5% on the inline tenants. The total vacancy is estimated at $82,839. PET estimated the operating expenses, excluding real estate taxes at 28% of EGI or $420,998 or $4.95/sf. The NOI is estimated at $1,082,567 or $12.81/sf. PAO’s NOI is estimated at $13.82/sf PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, for the year 2019 for neighborhood centers. The surveys indicate cap rates; Viewpoint (6.8%-7.3%), RERC (6.3%-10%). PET used a cap rate of 8.00% and added a mill rate of 1.139% for a total cap rate of 9.14%. The NOI of $1,082,567.00 capitalized at 9.14% indicates a value of $11,845,559, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $10,070,000. PET’s reconciled value conclusion $10,500,000. As rebuttal PET mentioned that the center does not have good visibility from Collier Boulevard due to the improved outparcels located at the front of the center, along Collier Boulevard. PET mentioned that the vacant outparcel, that forms part of this petition is too small to build upon. PET indicated that most of the land, where the center is built, is a retention area and not buildable. PET indicated that PAO’s land value is high, PAO applied a high value to the entire site when only a portion of the site is buildable. PET indicated the main difference in value is attributable to the cap rate. PET indicated that the local sales cap rates, from PAO, are all anchored my Publix and that Publix is a stronger tenant than Winn Dixie and the cap rate should be higher for the subject. PET 2020-00606 Page 8 of 10 indicted that Winn Dixie occupies 50,991-sf, and has 2 years left on the lease; PET indicated centers are shrinking in size and the new models are for anchor tenants at 28,000-sf to 32,000-sf. If Winn Dixie and Anytime Fitness were to vacate, approximately 57,000-sf would become available. As rebuttal, PAO indicated Winn Dixie has been in the center a long time and is one the few Winn Dixie stores to remain open. The center can clearly be seen from Collier Boulevard and services the large residential population in the area. The outparcels benefit all the tenants and the exposure is good. PAO mentioned the resale, of several sales used in the report, indicating that values have increased over the past several years; the sale of the subject in the year 2016 at $201/sf would be higher today based on the indicates in value indicated by the paired sales. The subject’s just value is at $169.30/sf. PAO mentioned that all large sites have non-developable portions. The cap rate used by PAO is from actual sales of centers in Collier and Lee Counties and the sales are anchored by grocery stores. The fact that the center was purchased with only 2 years left on the Winn Dixie lease and the high occupancy of the subject supports the cap rate used by PAO. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET provided the Income Approach only based on actual income and also, market rents. The difference in value, between PAO and PET, is attributable to the cap rate. PAO used a cap rate of 6% and loaded a mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.2%. PET’s used a cap rate of 8%, loaded with a mill rate of 1.139% for a total cap rate of 9.1%. PAO provided better cap rate support from sales in Collier and Lee County, in close proximity to the subject. PET provided cap rate support from national surveys. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Just Value Petition # 2020-00606 $13,967,263 Retail Center Petition # 2020-00607 $334,541. Outparcel Total $14,301,804 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00606: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are 2020-00606 Page 9 of 10 different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00606 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00607 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00607 60204200345 ANDER SOLUPE NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 334,541.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/09/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/10/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00607: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. Petition number 2020-00606 and petition number 2020-00607 were heard as one petition. The property is developed with a retail neighborhood shopping center with an adjoining vacant land outparcel. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows: Petition # 2020-00606 $13,967,263 Retail Center Petition # 2020-00607 $334,541. Outparcel Total $14,301,804 The value has not changed, for either parcel, since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story, class C-average to good, retail center, anchored by Winn-Dixie grocery store and Anytime Fitness. The total building area is 84,474-sf. The land size for the retail center comprises 790,947-sf or 18.157 acres of which 352,734 is developable land and the remaining land is preserve-not developable. The outparcel contains 27,878-sf. The property was developed in 2005. PAO indicated the subject sold in October 2016 for $17,000,000. The property was reported at 97% occupancy at the time of sale. The property is located at 7550 Mission Hill Drive, Naples FL. As part of the evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty 2020-00607 Page 2 of 10 of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 114 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, property information, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, subject exhibits, with photographs of the subject, aerials and site maps, building sketch, regional and neighborhood market analysis, description of the site and improvements, market analysis, highest and best use analysis. PAO included a land valuation, with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach, with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO provided general assumption and limiting conditions, the deed with the legal description, the listing for the sale of the subject in 2016, an article on the closing of Winn-Dixie stores dated 11/16, impact fees, description sheets of each land and improved sales with photographs, market support for cap rates and the property record cards. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 7 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from February 2016 to January 2020. The land sales range in size from 193,406-sf to 2,275,977-sf; the traffic count at the sales range from 13,600 to 46,000 vehicles/day. The unadjusted sales range from $6.05 to $34.82/sf. The mean of all the sales is $15.17/sf and the median is $10.95/ sf. PAO reconciled at $11.97/sf on 818,825-sf for a value of $9,800,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. Depreciated building cost including site improvements has been estimated at $8,242,342 plus impact fees estimated at $1,432,000 plus the land value estimated at $9,800,000 for a total cost of $19,474,000 rounded. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 16 sales of properties in 2020-00607 Page 3 of 10 Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties. The sales occurred from May 2017 to December 2019. The sales range in building size from 46,400-sf to 175,504-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 4.18 acres to 21.87 acres with a land to building ratio ranging from 9% to 32%, the subject has a land to building ratio of 10%. The buildings were built from 1993 to 2016. The sales range from $79.00 to $402.00/sf of building area including land. All sales have a mean price of $211.00/sf of building area including land and a median price of $192.00/sf of building area including land. The sales in Collier County range from $154.00 to $402.00/sf with a mean of $260.00 and a median of $248.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $220.00/sf of building area including land or $18,584,000 rounded. PAO provided the Income Approach. PAO provided confidential rents in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties of community, neighborhood, freestanding and power centers, with anchor tenants. The building sizes range from 21,000-sf to 62,000-sf; the rents range from $5.00 to $19.33/sf with a mean of $11.77/sf and a median of $11.02/sf on a gross basis, (where the owner pays the majority of the expenses). PAO estimated a gross rent for the anchor space at $13.00/sf gross on 50,314-sf or $654,082. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, for junior anchor space in neighborhood, community and strip centers; the unit sizes range from 7,000-sf to 21,000- sf; the rents range from $9.61 to $26.05/sf with a mean of $15.54/sf and a median of $15.60/sf on a gross basis. PAO estimated a gross rent for the junior anchor tenants at $18.00/sf gross on 5,754-sf or $103,572. PAO provided confidential rent comparables, in Naples, for In-Line space, in neighborhood and community centers with an anchor tenant; the unit sizes range from 840-sf to 10,000-sf; the rents range from $25.80 to $69.50/sf with a mean of $39.90/sf and a median of $38.95/sf on a gross basis. PAO provided 14 rent listings of in-line retail space in Naples. The units range from 985-sf to 12,800-sf with a mean of 4,798-sf and a median of 3,168-sf. The rents range from $15.00 to $39.34/sf with a mean of $25.81/sf and a median $26.28/sf. The CAM ranges from $5.13/sf to $16.35/sf with a mean of $7.92/sf and a median of $7.49/sf. The gross rent equivalent ranges from $20.25/sf to $55.69/sf with a mean of $33.98/sf and a median of $33.78/sf. PAO estimated a gross rent for the in-line tenants at $31.00/sf gross on 28,406-sf or $880,586. PAO estimated a total Gross rent (includes all common area maintenance (CAM) for the subject of $1,638,240 or $19.39/sf average. PAO provided vacancy and collection loss support for retail properties in SW Florida from the real estate market survey CoStar for the years 2017 to 2019. Vacancies for this time period range from 4.6% to 6.90% with a 3-yr average of 6.00% and an average for 2019 of 6.32%. PAO indicated the average occupancy at the subject is 98%. Based on the physical, locational and economical attributes, PAO used a vacancy and collection loss of 5% or $81,912. 2020-00607 Page 4 of 10 The effective gross income (EGI) is $1,556,328. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The information was provided on 15 commercial strip, neighborhood and community centers; the centers range in size from 17,000-sf to 245,000-sf with a mean of 62,357-sf and a median of 44,500-sf. The effective gross income (EGI) for these centers ranges from $9.44/sf to $32.26/sf with a mean of $18.51 to $17.09/sf; operating expenses range from $1.83/sf to $7.73/sf with a mean of $5.01/sf to $5.45/sf; the operating expense ratio ranges from 15.2% to 40.2% with a mean of 27.3% and a median of 27.2%; expenses have been adjusted to exclude real estate taxes. PAO included operating expense ratios from the year 2016 to 2019 from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, and these ratios range from 31% to 33% of effective gross income, inclusive of real estate taxes. The operating income ranges from $7.44 to $29.14/sf; the operating expenses range from $2.44/sf to $9.40/sf. PAO used an expense ratio of 25% of effective gross income (EGI) or $389,082 or $4.61/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $1,167,246. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 9 sales of retail properties located in Collier, Charlotte and Lee Counties. The cap rates range from 5.8% to 7.96% with a mean of 6.46% and a median of 6.46% (the net rent for these sales ranges from $6.26-$26.01/sf). PAO provided the cap rate for retail properties in SW Florida from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC. The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.35% to 9.33% with an average of 6.86%. PAO provided a cap rate analysis based on the Band of Investment method, the cap rate indicated by this method is 6.47%. PAO used a cap rate of 6% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.20%. The NOI of $1,167,246 capitalized at 7.20% indicates a value of $16,212,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion: Petition # 2020-00606 $13,967,263 Retail Center Petition # 2020-00607 $334,541. Outparcel Total $14,301,804 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). 2020-00607 Page 5 of 10 The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. 2020-00607 Page 6 of 10 The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 48-page, which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, subject tax bill and aerials. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and a market proforma. PET provided the rent roll for the subject, comparable asking rents with photos and details on each comparable center. PET provided market support for the vacancy rate, and capitalization rate (cap rate). PET provided the overall construction summary for Naples and North Naples. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach using actual income and expenses at the subject. The total potential revenue includes all revenues and common area maintenance (CAM) as well as other income of $1,603,093. No vacancy and collection loss was deducted. Total expenses include CAM, non- recoverable CAM, insurance, other expense, management fee and reserves of $418,995 or 26.14% of income or $4.92/sf were deducted. The NOI is estimated at $1,184,098. The NOI is capitalized at a cap rate of 8% with an added mill rate of 1.139% for a total cap rate of 9.14%; the indicated value is $12,956,520. The cost of sales at 15% was deducted for a just value of $11,010,000. PET developed the Income Approach using market rents. PET provided 17 rents in Collier and Lee Counties located in community and neighborhood centers, most of which are anchored by a grocery store. The centers range in size 62,935-sf to 161,164-sf and were built from 1996 to 2014; the rents range from $14.53/sf to $29.02/sf triple net. The rents at the subject, from the rent roll, indicate Winn Dixie renewed their lease in 2018 to 2022; this 50,991-sf space is rented at $10.98/sf, plus CAM. Anytime Fitness, occupies 5,795-sf and the rent is $11.27/sf, plus CAM. There is one tenant occupying 1,429-sf and paying $41.89/sf, this is the highest rent in the complex. The remaining spaces range from 1,398-sf to 3,602-sf and the rent for these spaces ranges from $16.70/ 2020-00607 Page 7 of 10 sf to $28.64/sf with the majority of the rents being in the $20.00 to $22.00/sf range, plus CAM. For the Anchor Tenant, PET estimated a rent of $11.00/sf with a $2.50/sf CAM on 50,991-sf for a total rent of $688,379.00. The junior tenant Anytime Fitness was estimated at $15.00/sf on 5,795-sf , with a CAM of $3.00 for a total rent of $104,310. The Blue Monkey Bar and Grill at 3,602-sf was estimated at $20.00/sf, plus $5.00/sf CAM or $90,050. The total rent for these two tenants is $194,360. The in-line space of 24,690-sf was estimated at $23.00/sf. with s $5.50 CAM or $703,665. The Gross income is estimated at $1,586,404. PET provided support for the vacancy rate from CoStar market survey, which indicates a vacancy in North Naples of 5.5%. PET used a vacancy of 5% on the anchor and junior anchor tenants and 5.5% on the inline tenants. The total vacancy is estimated at $82,839. PET estimated the operating expenses, excluding real estate taxes at 28% of EGI or $420,998 or $4.95/sf. The NOI is estimated at $1,082,567 or $12.81/sf. PAO’s NOI is estimated at $13.82/sf PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from national surveys, for the year 2019 for neighborhood centers. The surveys indicate cap rates; Viewpoint (6.8%-7.3%), RERC (6.3%-10%). PET used a cap rate of 8.00% and added a mill rate of 1.139% for a total cap rate of 9.14%. The NOI of $1,082,567.00 capitalized at 9.14% indicates a value of $11,845,559, less cost of sales at 15% indicates a value of $10,070,000. PET’s reconciled value conclusion $10,500,000. As rebuttal PET mentioned that the center does not have good visibility from Collier Boulevard due to the improved outparcels located at the front of the center, along Collier Boulevard. PET mentioned that the vacant outparcel, that forms part of this petition is too small to build upon. PET indicated that most of the land, where the center is built, is a retention area and not buildable. PET indicated that PAO’s land value is high, PAO applied a high value to the entire site when only a portion of the site is buildable. PET indicated the main difference in value is attributable to the cap rate. PET indicated that the local sales cap rates, from PAO, are all anchored my Publix and that Publix is a stronger tenant than Winn Dixie and the cap rate should be higher for the subject. PET 2020-00607 Page 8 of 10 indicted that Winn Dixie occupies 50,991-sf, and has 2 years left on the lease; PET indicated centers are shrinking in size and the new models are for anchor tenants at 28,000-sf to 32,000-sf. If Winn Dixie and Anytime Fitness were to vacate, approximately 57,000-sf would become available. As rebuttal, PAO indicated Winn Dixie has been in the center a long time and is one the few Winn Dixie stores to remain open. The center can clearly be seen from Collier Boulevard and services the large residential population in the area. The outparcels benefit all the tenants and the exposure is good. PAO mentioned the resale, of several sales used in the report, indicating that values have increased over the past several years; the sale of the subject in the year 2016 at $201/sf would be higher today based on the indicates in value indicated by the paired sales. The subject’s just value is at $169.30/sf. PAO mentioned that all large sites have non-developable portions. The cap rate used by PAO is from actual sales of centers in Collier and Lee Counties and the sales are anchored by grocery stores. The fact that the center was purchased with only 2 years left on the Winn Dixie lease and the high occupancy of the subject supports the cap rate used by PAO. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET provided the Income Approach only based on actual income and also, market rents. The difference in value, between PAO and PET, is attributable to the cap rate. PAO used a cap rate of 6% and loaded a mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.2%. PET’s used a cap rate of 8%, loaded with a mill rate of 1.139% for a total cap rate of 9.1%. PAO provided better cap rate support from sales in Collier and Lee County, in close proximity to the subject. PET provided cap rate support from national surveys. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Just Value Petition # 2020-00606 $13,967,263 Retail Center Petition # 2020-00607 $334,541. Outparcel Total $14,301,804 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00607: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are 2020-00607 Page 9 of 10 different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00607 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00614 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00614 94150000063 ANDER SOLUPE 3798 WHITE LAKEBLVD NAPLES, FL 34117✔ ✔ 7,709,121.00 7,709,121.00 7,709,121.00 7,709,121.00 7,709,121.00 7,709,121.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,709,121.00 7,709,121.00 7,709,121.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/12/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00614: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. Petition number 2020- 00595 and petition number 2020-00614 were heard as one petition. The property is developed with a hotel called Spring Hill Suites. The land upon which the hotel is built is leased land. These two petitions represent the land and the building. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows: Petition # 2020-00595 $2,378,376 Petition # 2020-00614 $7,709,121 Total $10,087,497 The value has not changed, for either parcel, since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a 4-story limited service hotel with 102 rooms, branded as Springhill Suites. Amenities include limited dining, fitness center, meeting rooms, laundry on-site and outdoor pool. The total building area is 58,556-sf; the land size is 198,198-sf or 4.55 acres. The building was built in 2008. The property sold in October 2015 for a combined land and building price of $9,224,100. The properties are located at 3798 White Lake Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property 2020-00614 Page 2 of 10 appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 99 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, building sketch, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; market value of tangible personal property (TPP), from Collier County Property Appraiser ($517,986); article on the new Collier County Sports Complex (in close proximity to the subject); individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales, with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate and operating expenses; property record card. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO stated that the subject is located in close proximity to the new Collier County Sports Complex, which will benefit the hotel industry in the area of the subject for housing of out of town teams and guests. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 16 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 10/17 to 1/20. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 193,406-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $13.71/sf to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.40/sf and the median is $21.93/sf. Four of the sales had a proposed hotel use, these sales range from $18.00- $34.00/sf with a mean of $27.00/sf and a median of $22.00/sf. Two sales are located in close proximity to the subject and sold in the range of $14.00 to $17.00/sf; both lots were vacant and wooded at time of sale. PAO reconciled a value at $16.00/sf or $3,170,000 rounded. 2020-00614 Page 3 of 10 PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $6,970,494, impact fees are estimated at $491,000, the land value is estimated at $3,170,000 for a total cost of $10,630,000 rounded. Contributory Value of Assets (TPP and BEV (intangible personal property)- PAO provided a Cost Approach value for the going concern of the hotel, which comprises three elements: real property, tangible personal property (TTP or FF&E) and intangible value contributions ( business enterprise value). The 2020 market value of the TTP is $517,986 per Collier County Property Appraiser, this value is based on the original cost information for the TPP that was supplied by the owner and depreciated/adjusted to current market value. PAO has considered the TPP value at $520,000 rounded. The intangible personal property (BEV) is estimated at $590,000. PAO estimated BEV by deducting the cost approach value of the real estate and the TPP from the sales comparison and the income approach (further in the report). The extracted BEV from the two approaches to value provides a reasonable estimate. The BEV estimate from the Sales Comparison Approach is $782,506, the BEV from the Income Approach is $395,506, the average of these two values is $590,000 rounded. For the cost approach the BEV is added to the value and in the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach the value is deducted. Summary Cost Approach: The total value of the subject by the Cost Approach-Going Concern is $10,630,000, plus $520,000 for tangible personal property (TTP) and $590,000 for intangible property (BEV) for a total of $11,740,000 or $200.49/sf or $115,098/room. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 24 sales of hotels in the state of Florida. The sales range in building size from 37,372-sf to 589,000-sf with a mean of 110,037-sf and a median of 75,783-sf; and 68 to 742 rooms. The buildings were built from 1974 to 2015. The sales range from $89.00/sf to $421.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $206.00/sf and a median of $206.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $58,824 to $258,503 with a mean of $127,854 and a mean of $124,796. The occupancy ranges from 68% to 87.90% with an average of 77.76% and a median of 76.85%. The average daily rate (ADR) ranges from $84.52 to $195.00 with a mean of $118.95 and a median of $116.54. The revenue per available room (RevPAR) ranges from $68.00 to $148.20 with a mean of $92.32 and a median of $90.09. The gross room revenue multiplier (GRRM) ranges from 2.13 to 4.96 with a mean of 3.69 and a median of 3.60. PAO provided 13 additional sales in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties. The 13 sales range in building size from 31,808-sf to 84,934-sf with a mean of 56,439-sf and a median of 53,660-sf; and 68 to 148 rooms. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2009. The sales range from $112.00/sf to $342.00/sf of building area including land, with a 2020-00614 Page 4 of 10 mean of $217.00/sf and a median of $213.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $53,774 to $184,314 with a mean of $120,691 and a mean of $116,364. No information on the occupancy, ADR, RevPAR and GRRM were available for these 13 sales. PAO reconciled a value based on a RevPAR calculation at $125,000/room x 102 rooms = $12,750,000. PAO estimated the GRRM at 3.6 x gross room revenue of $3,315,704 = $11,936,534/102 rooms = $107,000/room rounded x 102 rooms = $11,934,000 Summary Sales Comparison Approach: Estimated value by Sales Comparison Approach $11,934,000, less TPP or $520,000, less intangible property of $590,000 = $10,824,000, Fee Simple Value (Real Estate only) or $106,118/room. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided support from the STR Trend Report (a survey for hotels) for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR. The occupancy for central Florida and Naples submarket for upscale hotels ranges from 64.1% to 73.5%, the ADR ranges from $131.70 to $311.07/room and the RevPAR ranges from $84.48 to $228.76/ room. The subject’s 3-yr historical average for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR is calculated at 73.8%, $119.45 and $88.11 respectively. PAO estimated an occupancy of 73% ADR of $122.00 and RevPAR of $89.06 for the subject. The total room income is estimated at $3,315,704. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $66,314. Total revenue is estimated at $3,382,018. PAO provided support for operating expenses from 24 hotels located throughout Florida. The operating expense ratio (expenses divided by gross income) ranges from 58.12% to 74.67% with an average of 66.70% and a median of 66.58%. Limited service properties expense ratios range from 58% to 75% with an average of 66%. 2020 STR survey reports 62.2% for the south Atlantic Region and 58.1% for upscale hotels. PAO has estimated the operating expense ratio at 69%, which includes undistributed expenses, management fee and fixed expenses or $2,319,667. The net operating income NOI is $1,062,351. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 24 hotel sales in Florida. The cap rates range from 7.50% to 10.70% with a mean of 8.77% and a median of 8.65%. PAO’s local sales indicate a cap rate range from 7.5% to 9.38% with an average of 8.47% and a mean of 8.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for hotels taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 12.00% with an average of 8.04%. PAO used a cap rate of 8.00% and loaded the mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 9.20%. 2020-00614 Page 5 of 10 The NOI of $1,062,351capitalized at 9.20% indicates a value of $11,547,000 rounded. Summary Income Approach: Estimated value by Income Approach $11,547,000 rounded, less TPP of $520,000 and less intangible personal property of $590,000 for a value of $10,437,000 for real estate only. PAO’s just value conclusion: Petition # 2020-00595 $2,378,376 (land) Petition # 2020-00614 $7,709,121 (building) Total $10,087,497 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00614 Page 6 of 10 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 38-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, tax bill for 2020, photograph of the subject and location map. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and market proforma. PET provided a summary of income and expenses for the subject. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided the STR report for January 17, 2020. PET provided market support for the capitalization rate (cap rate), operating expenses and management and franchise fees. PET provided an article, from Hotel News Now, on reserves. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00614 Page 7 of 10 PET developed the Income Approach only. PAO provided a value based on actual income generated at the subject in the year 2019. The occupancy was 68.2% and the ADR was $121.83/room, and RevPAR was $83.12/room. The total room income is estimated at $3,094,683. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $66,354. Total revenue is estimated at $3,161,037. Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated total expenses at $2,167,001 or 69% of income. The net operating income NOI is $994,036. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $994,036 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $9,793,974 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $8,325,000. PET provided a market proforma Income Approach. The STR report for the subject was provided by PET and indicates an occupancy rate of 68.2%, an ADR of $121.83/room and a RevPAR of $83.12/room. PET estimated an ADR of $128.13 for the subject for a gross room revenue of $4,770,280. PET added other income of 1% of $47,703 for a total revenue of $4,817,983. PET estimated a vacancy of 45% of total income or $2,163,274. The effective gross income is estimated at $2,654,708 or $71.30/room/day. PAO/s equivalent is $90.84/ room/day Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020 . PET estimated total expenses at $1,831,749 or 69% of income. The net operating income NOI is $822,960. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $822,960 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $8,108,408 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $6,892,000. 2020-00614 Page 8 of 10 PET value conclusion for both parcels $6,892,000 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET developed the Income Approach only, and used the actual income for one year only, additional years would be better, as a history of hotel income is relevant. There have been new hotels in the area and the occupancy of the subject has dropped slightly, however, with the opening of the sports complex, all the hotels in the area will benefit. The average occupancy at the subject over the past 3 years has been about 73%, PET used a lower occupancy at 68.2% on actual income and 55% on the market proforma. PET did not provide analysis of TTP and going concern. As rebuttal, PET indicated that looking at the future income based on current economic conditions, and the positive outlook of the Sports Center is irrelevant. PET indicated that PAO’s RevPAR is at $89.06 and PET’s RevPAR is at $83.12 substantially higher than PET’s. PET indicated PAO’s NOI is at $1,062,351 and PET’s NOI is at $994,036, noting that PAO’s expenses are understated. PET indicated the cap rates provided by PAO for sales in the local market are more in line with PET’s cap rate estimate. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value and provided analysis of the tangible and intangible property. PET provided the Income Approach only, based on actual rents for one year, the total revenue fluctuates from year to year and an average of several years would provide better data. PET did not address the tangible and intangible property separately as did PAO. Both PAO and PET deducted operating expenses of 69% of total revenue, however PET’s total revenue and average daily rate are lower than PAO’s. PAO provided good support for the cap rate, from sales in Collier and Lee counties; PAO estimated a cap rate based on the location of the subject. PET’s cap rate is from national surveys with no cap rates in Collier or Lee County. PET’s market pro forma at 55% occupancy is not supported and considered understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00614: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted 2020-00614 Page 9 of 10 appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00614 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00615 Page 1 of 10 Collier ✔ 2020-00615 94150000050 ANDER SOLUPE 3808 WHITE LAKEBLVD NAPLES, FL 34117✔ ✔ 7,809,228.00 7,809,228.00 7,809,228.00 7,809,228.00 7,809,228.00 7,809,228.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,809,228.00 7,809,228.00 7,809,228.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/10/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/12/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00615: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was Mr. Imran Thobani and Ms. Katelyn Avello, from Ryan LLC, agents for the owner. PAO and PET were sworn in. Petition number 2020- 00594 and petition number 2020-00615 were heard as one petition. The property is developed with a hotel called Fairfield Inn and Suites. The land upon which the hotel is built is leased land. These two petitions represent the land and the building. SM read the petition number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just values as follows: Petition # 2020-00594 $2,124,480 (land) Petition # 2020-00615 $7,809,228 (building) Total $9,933,708 The value has not changed, for either parcel, since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a 4-story limited service hotel with 109 rooms, branded as Fairfield Inn & Suites. Amenities include limited dining, business center, fitness center, meeting rooms, laundry on-site and outdoor pool. The total building area is 58,344-sf; the land size is 177,040-sf or 4.064 acres. The building was built in 2009. The property sold in October 2015 for a combined land and building price of $9,938,500. The properties are located at 3808 White Lake Boulevard, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property 2020-00615 Page 2 of 10 appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 98 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, building sketch, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; market value of tangible personal property (TPP), from Collier County Property Appraiser; article on the new Collier County Sports Complex (in close proximity to the subject); individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales, with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate and operating expenses; property record card. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO stated that the subject is located in close proximity to the new Collier County Sports Complex, which will benefit the hotel industry in the area of the subject for housing of out of town teams and guests. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 16 land sales; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 10/17 to 1/20. The land sales range in size from 43,996-sf to 193,406-sf. The unadjusted sales range from $13.71/sf to $60.42/sf. The mean of all the sales is $26.40/sf and the median is $21.93/sf. Four of the sales had a proposed hotel use, these sales range from $18.00- $34.00/sf with a mean of $27.00/sf and a median of $22.00/sf. Two sales are located in close proximity to the subject and sold in the range of $14.00 to $17.00/sf; both lots were vacant and wooded at time of sale. PAO reconciled a value at $16.00/sf or $2,830,000 rounded. 2020-00615 Page 3 of 10 PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $7,061,736, impact fees are estimated at $524,000, the land value is estimated at $2,830,000 for a total cost of $10,420,000 rounded. Contributory Value of Assets (TPP and BEV (intangible personal property)- PAO provided a Cost Approach value for the going concern of the hotel, which comprises three elements: real property, tangible personal property (TTP or FF&E) and intangible value contributions ( business enterprise value). The 2020 market value of the TTP is $495,715 per Collier County Property Appraiser, this value is based on the original cost information for the TPP that was supplied by the owner and depreciated/adjusted to current market value. PAO has considered the TPP value at $500,000 rounded. The intangible personal property (BEV) is estimated at $600,000. PAO estimated BEV by deducting the cost approach value of the real estate and the TPP from the sales comparison and the income approach (further in the report). The extracted BEV from the two approaches to value provides a reasonable estimate. The BEV estimate from the Sales Comparison Approach is $743,000, the BEV from the Income Approach is $457,000, the average of these two values is $600,000 rounded. For the cost approach the BEV is added to the value and in the Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach the value is deducted. Summary Cost Approach: The total value of the subject by the Cost Approach-Going Concern is $10,420,000, plus $500,000 for tangible personal property (TTP) and $600,000 for intangible property (BEV) for a total of $11,520,000 or $197.45/sf or $105,688/room. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 24 sales of hotels in the state of Florida. The sales range in building size from 37,372-sf to 589,000-sf with a mean of 110,037-sf and a median of 75,783-sf; and 68 to 742 rooms. The buildings were built from 1974 to 2015. The sales range from $89.00/sf to $421.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $206.00/sf and a median of $206.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $58,824 to $258,503 with a mean of $127,854 and a mean of $124,796. The occupancy ranges from 68% to 87.90% with an average of 77.76% and a median of 76.85%. The average daily rate (ADR) ranges from $84.52 to $195.00 with a mean of $118.95 and a median of $116.54. The revenue per available room (RevPAR) ranges from $68.00 to $148.20 with a mean of $92.32 and a median of $90.09. The gross room revenue multiplier (GRRM) ranges from 2.13 to 4.96 with a mean of 3.69 and a median of 3.60. PAO provided 13 additional sales in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties. The 13 sales range in building size from 31,808-sf to 84,934-sf with a mean of 56,439-sf and a median of 53,660-sf; and 68 to 148 rooms. The buildings were built from 1965 to 2009. The sales range from $112.00/sf to $342.00/sf of building area including land, with a 2020-00615 Page 4 of 10 mean of $217.00/sf and a median of $213.00/sf. The average price per room ranges from $53,774 to $184,314 with a mean of $120,691 and a mean of $116,364. No information on the occupancy, ADR, RevPAR and GRRM were available for these 13 sales. PAO reconciled a value based on a RevPAR calculation at $106,000/room x 109 rooms = $11,554,000. PAO estimated the GRRM at 3.57 x gross room revenue from the income approach of $3,266,746 = $11,662,284 or $107,000/room rounded x 109 rooms = $11,663,000 Summary Sales Comparison Approach: Estimated value by Sales Comparison Approach $11,663,000, less TPP or $500,000, less intangible property of $600,000 = $10,563,000, Fee Simple Value (Real Estate only) or $96,908/room. PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided support from the STR Trend Report (a survey for hotels) for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR. The occupancy for central Florida and Naples submarket for upscale hotels ranges from 64.1% to 68.9%, the ADR ranges from $116.06 to $241.99/room and the RevPAR ranges from $80.00 to $156.20/ room. The subject’s 3-yr historical average for occupancy, ADR and RevPAR is calculated at 65.8%, $119.18 and $78.40 respectively. PAO estimated an occupancy of 69%, ADR of $119.00 and RevPAR of $82.11 for the subject. The total room income is estimated at $3,266,746. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $65,335. Total revenue is estimated at $3,332,081. PAO provided support for operating expenses from 24 hotels located throughout Florida. The operating expense ratio (expenses divided by gross income) ranges from 58.12% to 74.67% with an average of 66.70% and a median of 66.58%. Limited service properties expense ratios range from 58% to 75% with an average of 66%. 2020 STR survey reports 62.2% for the south Atlantic Region and 58.1% for upscale hotels. PAO has estimated the operating expense ratio at 68.6%, which includes undistributed expenses, management fee and fixed expenses or $2,285,415. The net operating income NOI is $1,046,666. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 24 hotel sales in Florida. The cap rates range from 7.50% to 10.70% with a mean of 8.77% and a median of 8.65%. PAO’s local sales indicate a cap rate range from 7.5% to 9.38% with an average of 8.47% and a mean of 8.00%. PAO provided the cap rate for hotels taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, and RERC (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources ranges from 5.00% to 12.00% with an average of 8.04%. PAO used a cap rate of 8.00% and loaded the mill rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 9.20%. 2020-00615 Page 5 of 10 The NOI of $1,046,666 capitalized at 9.20% indicates a value of $11,377,000 rounded. Summary Income Approach: Estimated value by Income Approach $11,377,000 rounded, less TPP of $500,000 and less intangible personal property of $600,000 for a value of $10,277,000 for real estate only. PAO’s just value conclusion: Petition # 2020-00594 $2,124,480 (land) Petition # 2020-00615 $7,809,228 (building) Total $9,933,708 The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. 2020-00615 Page 6 of 10 The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET presented a report containing 38-pages which consisted of a cover page, summary of evidence, subject property record card, tax bill for 2020, photograph of the subject and location map. PET developed the Income Approach only for the subject, based on actual income and market proforma. PET provided a summary of income and expenses for the subject. As support for the Income Approach, PET provided the STR report for January 17, 2020. PET provided market support for the capitalization rate (cap rate), operating expenses and management and franchise fees. PET provided an article, from Hotel News Now, on reserves. PET included the property tax oversight bulletin PTO 11-01 and DR-493. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. 2020-00615 Page 7 of 10 PET developed the Income Approach only. PAO provided a value based on actual income generated at the subject in the year 2019. The occupancy was 62.2% and the ADR was $115.66/room, and RevPAR was $71.98/room. The total room income is estimated at $2,863,603. Other income has been estimated at 2.00% of room revenue or $43,665. Total revenue is estimated at $2,907,268. Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020. PET estimated total expenses at $2,068,640 or 71% of income. The net operating income NOI is $838,628. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $838,628 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $8,262,787 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $7,023,000. PET provided a market proforma Income Approach. The STR report for the subject was provided by PET and indicates an occupancy rate of 62.2%, an ADR of $120.33/room and a RevPAR of $115.66/room. PET estimated an ADR of $120.33 for the subject for a gross room revenue of $4,787,329. PET added other income of 1% of $47,873 for a total revenue of $4,835,202. PET estimated a vacancy of 47% of total income or $2,272,545. The effective gross income is estimated at $2,562,657 or $64.41/room/day. PAO/s equivalent is $83.75/ room/day Operating expenses were provided for the subject and supported by operating statements for Limited Service Hotels in Trends in Hotel Industry US edition 2020 . PET estimated total expenses at $1,768,233 or 69% of income. The net operating income NOI is $794,424. PET supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) from market surveys CBRE, Realty Rates.com, RERC, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) for hotels (3rd & 4th Q 2019) in the range of 8.5% to 11%. PET estimated a cap rate of 9% and loaded for the mill rate of 1.149 for a total cap rate of 10.15%. The NOI of $794,424 capitalized at 10.15% indicates a value of $7,827,251 less 15% cost of sales indicated a value of $6,653,000. 2020-00615 Page 8 of 10 PET value conclusion for both parcels $6,653,000 As rebuttal, PAO indicated PET developed the Income Approach only, and used the actual income for one year only, additional years would be better, as a history of hotel income is relevant. There have been new hotels in the area and the occupancy of the subject has dropped slightly, however, with the opening of the sports complex, all the hotels in the area will benefit. The average occupancy at the subject over the past 3 years has been about 64%, PET used a lower occupancy at 62.2% on actual income and 53% on the market proforma. PET did not provide analysis of TTP and going concern. As rebuttal, PET indicated that looking at the future income based on current economic conditions, and the positive outlook of the Sports Center is irrelevant. PET indicated that PAO’s effective gross income is at $83.75/room and PET’s effective gross income is at $64.41/room substantially higher than PET’s. PET indicated the cap rates provided by PAO for sales in the local market are more in line with PET’s cap rate estimate. Special Magistrate (SM) reviewed the evidence. PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value and provided analysis of the tangible and intangible property. PET provided the Income Approach only, based on actual rents for one year; the total revenue fluctuates from year to year and an average of several years would provide better data. PET did not address the tangible and intangible property separately. Both PAO and PET deducted operating expenses of 69% of total revenue, however PET’s total revenue and average daily rate are lower than PAO’s. PAO provided good support for the cap rate, from sales in Collier and Lee counties; PAO estimated a cap rate based on the location of the subject. PET’s cap rate is from national surveys with no cap rates in Collier or Lee County. PET’s market pro forma at 53% occupancy is not supported and considered understated. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00615: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. 2020-00615 Page 9 of 10 In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00615 Page 10 of 10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00627 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00627 54751600006 JAMES F MOREY 107 DOMINICALN NAPLES, FL 34134✔ ✔ 9,981,590.00 8,248,260.00 8,248,260.00 6,900,570.00 6,900,570.00 6,900,570.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,900,570.00 6,900,570.00 6,900,570.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 02/09/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/09/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00627: ATTENDEES: The Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Jenny Blaje, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner (PET) was represented in the hearing room by Mr. James Morey, Esq. (attorney for owner), William Reckmeyer (owner) and Doug Grant (Realtor). PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a vacant residential lot with direct frontage on the Gulf of Mexico. The subject’s address is 107 Dominica Lane in Naples. The subject consists of 11,954 SF, and actually can be thought of as two lots combined (i.e. Lots 8 & 9 of Block C of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1). The home on the lot was apparently not ‘substantially complete’, as of the assessment date. This hearing is about the land value only. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last sold in March 2000 for $875,000. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approach to support the subject’s contested just value of $8,248,260, or $690/SF of lot area. [Note: The original TRIM indicated a total just value of $9,981,590; however, the PAO reduced that amount prior to this hearing.] As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided a cover page, evidence list, witness list, summary of salient facts/conclusions, subject aerials, location/plat map, comparable sales map, Sales Comparison Approach grid of 6 sales, & comparable sales aerials. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides an adjustment grid of 6 sales. Five (5) of the 6 are improved. Only Sale #4 was a true land sale, which later sold with a home as Sale #3. There were 3 sales from 2019, 2 sales from 2018, and 1 sale from 2017. All 6 sales are in close proximity to the subject because all are in the same subdivision facing the Gulf of Mexico. However, the lot sizes, front feet, views, and orientations do tend to differ, particularly because of the ‘garden’ (green space) courtyard areas differ in size/width/depth. Each courtyard has an alphabetic name (A through K). The subject is located on the southern end of “C” with a prime/direct Gulf view, as well as a good view of the courtyard (with its common pool). This subdivision was created and platted before AutoCAD and modern planning techniques that could have ensured better uniformity from one cluster to the next. Unfortunately, what exists is the exact opposite. This creates a lack of lot consistency from cluster to cluster. This also makes it much more difficult to have highly consistent land assessments, given the variety of variables that exist with highly desirable and valuable land. The PAO does a good job of laying out the sales on a plat map and identifying each sale. In the PAO’s grid, the PAO deducts out the improvement value portion of his assessment from the 5 sales that have improvements, resulting in one true lot sale (#4) and 5 ‘residual’ land value indicators. The PAO indicates an average sales price of $844/SF and median of $822/SF (before any cost of sale adjustment is applied). From the evidence provided, it appears Sale #2 is the most similar of any sale and it also happens to be close, yet has a larger garden view in cluster “B” as compared to the subject’s cluster “C”. The PAO concludes $822/SF X 11,954 SF = $9,286,188 (before COS consideration) from his data. 2020-00627 Page 2 of 5 The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. The PAO established the presumption of correctness at the hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible. The subject’s owner (architect) is well trained in residential design by virtue of his profession and many years of professional experience. The PET submitted a letter of explanation followed by many different analytical tests & graphics related to estimating an appropriate value for the subject. While I did spend considerable time in the hearing and after the hearing reviewing data presented, what is most relevant is what individual buyers in the market are willing to pay for similar lots. It is really that simple, as the market is what matters, regardless of mathematic modeling of what various professionals or appraisers think about how the market should react. I do give the owner a great deal of credit for the preparation of his models. From page 4 of 4 of the PET’s cover letter, he appears to be seeking relief millions of dollars below the PAO’s just value assessment. RULING: I have prepared an exhibit (attached to this ruling) where I analyze the PAO’s data. First, each sales price is adjusted forward to the assessment date at the rate of 5% with annual compounding to partially account for favorable market conditions. Next, a 15% cost of sale (COS) adjustment is applied to each time-adjusted sales price, in accordance with FS 193.011. Next, I deduct out the value of improvements to 5 of the 6 sales using the dollar amounts the PAO uses in his sales grid. The result is the time-adjusted ‘residual’ lot value, which can then be divided by the square feet associated with each lot. It is noted that Sale #4 was an actual lot sale, so it did not need a deduction for improvements. Ideally, all of the sales used in this analysis would have been true lot sales, but we have to use the best available data the market provides. From the data provided, the average sales price/SF of land is indicated as $671/SF. Granted, some sales may be a little better, some are inferior. Some are a little smaller, but several are close to the subject’s size of 11,954 SF. Based upon my review of the PAO’s aerials and plat map, it appears Sale #2 is the best and most comparable sale in terms of size, view, and configuration (especially on its eastern end). It does have a wider green space that makes it slightly super in that aspect, but its view is not blocked and neither is the subject’s. As shown in the exhibit, I give most weight to the average indicator ($690/SF) of Sales 1, 2, and #4. 1 & 2 are both toward the northern end of the plat (as is the subject), and sale #4 is the one ‘true’ land sale, even though it is toward the southern end of the plat. I give secondary weight to the average of #1 and #2, which is $703/SF, because both are large lots toward the northern end of the plat. The PAO’s just value also happens to be $690/SF, which is supported by my analysis. The weight & preponderance of market evidence between buyers & sellers favors the PAO. While the development of models is often extremely helpful in the analysis of real estate (and especially in mass appraisal), the real test is what buyers and sellers will pay for similar circumstances. The PAO’s assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00627: 2020-00627 Page 3 of 5 Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00627 Page 4 of 5 Petition #2020-627 RESIDENTIAL LOT ON GULF JUST VALUE CONTESTED:$8,248,260 JUST VALUE/SF:$690.00 <SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE LOT SF 11,954 ASSESSMENT DATE: 01-Jan-20 5.00% Years Annual Less Cost of Sale Less PAO's Indicated Indicated Elapsed to Sale Actual Tme Adjusted Cost of Sale Adjusted Improvement Lot/residual Site Size Lot/residual MOST Secondary Sale 01-Jan-20 Date Sales Price Sales Price 15.0%Price Value value (Sq.Feet)value/SF WEIGHT Weight +1 0.53 20-Jun-19 $10,000,000 $10,264,087 - $1,539,613 = $8,724,474 - $1,665,174 = $7,059,300 10,698 $659.87 $659.87 $659.87 **2 0.70 19-Apr-19 $11,675,000 $12,083,047 - $1,812,457 = $10,270,590 - $1,505,943 = $8,764,647 11,754 $745.67 $745.67 $745.67 3 0.92 01-Feb-19 $10,250,000 $10,717,994 - $1,607,699 = $9,110,295 - $2,764,040 = $6,346,255 7,394 $858.30 4 2.99 04-Jan-17 $5,000,000 $5,785,804 - $867,871 $4,917,934 >>>>>>>>>= $4,917,934 7,394 $665.12 $665.12 5 1.22 12-Oct-18 $7,999,388 $8,490,795 - $1,273,619 = $7,217,176 - $1,400,612 = $5,816,564 11,087 $524.63 *6 1.48 10-Jul-18 $9,281,284 $9,976,004 - $1,496,401 = $8,479,603 - $3,018,716 = $5,460,887 9,564 $570.98 + Next to attached (higher density) housing product Averages>>9,649 $671 $690 $703 * Located opposite the subject in the same cluster.Ave 1>6 Ave 1,2&4 Ave 1>2 ** Best comparable & close to subject in next cluster north with very similar size, shape, & view characteristics, but larger green space courtyard. 2020-00627 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00632 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00632 00398880204 NAPLES LAND LLC NAPLES, FL 34114✔ ✔ 5,067,996.00 3,167,498.00 873,450.00 5,067,996.00 3,167,498.00 873,450.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,067,996.00 3,167,498.00 873,450.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 02/09/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 02/09/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00632: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Charles Stratton, Esq. via telephone. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is vacant raw land zoned PUD at the Southeast quadrant of I-75 & Collier Boulevard. The site consists of 9.69 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject had a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure showing a price of $5,264,900 in July 2016, which was not an open-market sale. The subject also sold for $3.2M in January 2003. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted the Sales Comparison Approaches to value to support the subject’s value, which was reduced from $5,067,996 to $3,167,498 prior to the hearing, or $7.50 per square foot. The PET was not satisfied with the lower offer from the PAO, which is why this hearing proceeded. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a business card list of PAO officials, land sales map, land sales grid, land sales aerial photos/details, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, copy of the subject’s prior deed, rebuttal notes, and photographs/back-up data for the comparable land sales. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $9/SF, based upon 7 land sales. This equates to $3.8M. Land Sale #1 is by far the high (outlier) sale at $34.82/SF and it is disregarded from consideration, given the rest of the sales range in price from $4.24 to $10.60/SF. The closest sales to the subject are #2 ($4.58/ SF), #3 ($7.36/SF) and #7 ($7.68/SF). The PET indicates that PAO’s Sale #2 (the lowest sale) is also the best indicator for the subject, given it is next to a surface ramp to I-75 & was wooded at time of sale. Sale #3 is also fairly similar and next to I-75, except that it was mostly cleared of trees. The PAO applied time adjustments to sales 4-7, but sales #1-3 were 2019 sales that did not require time adjustments. The PAO’s evidence is admissible, relevant, and credible. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness with his presentation. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET was the attorney handling the eminent domain proceedings for the owner against the DOT related to taking along the western and northern areas of the subject; thus, he is very familiar with the subject property and its recent history. Mr. Stratton provided the subject’s TRIM notice, a 9/11/20119 DOT appraisal of the subject, a website for the DOT interchange map, and the FL DOT informational bulletin for I-75 & SR 951. The DOT appraisal (prepared by Mr. Nick Chop, MAI) indicates the roadway taking impacts the H&BU of the remainder (i.e. the subject) to ‘potential multifamily residential use’. Page #57 of the DOT appraisal report concludes a value of $5.00/SF X 420,136 = $2,100,680, less wetland mitigation costs ($472,750), less fill ($327,370, less a driveway bridge connection ($427,071), resulting in a value to the remainder (i.e. the subject) of $873,450, or $2.08/SF. The appraiser notes (on page 58), “The ROW taking 2020-00632 Page 2 of 3 eliminates the driveway access to the subject from Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and leaves the one potential access driveway along SR 84 (Beck Boulevard). In testimony, the PET indicates there would be an elevated ramp (30’ high) adjacent to the subject, which would also be a negative view problem. The PET’s evidence is admissible, highly relevant, & highly credible. RULING: The PET provided a great deal of relevant information that very likely was not readily available to the PAO (or reviewed by the PAO) when assessing the subject. The PET likely provides a more accurate size of the subject of 420,136 SF. The DOT appraisal also makes some very significant adjustments for conditions (such as environmental wetlands, fill, and a bridge for a driveway) that were not considered by the PAO. The DOT appraisal was prepared by an approved MAI appraiser for the FL DOT; thus, that appraisal is deemed credible and timely. That report concludes the subject’s value at $873,450, which is my recommended value for this hearing, given the circumstances in the aftermath of the taking. The PET overcame the PAO’s presumption of correctness and there is a credible estimate of the value of the ‘remainder’ which is the subject property valued at $873,450. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00632: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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. 2020-00632 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00638 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00638: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert and Karen Nowak. The hearing was opened and all parties were sworn in for the hearing. The hearing was held with both the Petitioner’s representative Burkhard Klein and the PAO present. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $2,725,614. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a vacant lot located at 687 Annemore Ln. Pelican Bay. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. The PAO provided market data in support of the Just Value however is not entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. The PET provided a Certified Property Appraisal as evidence with an appraised value as of 01/01/2020 $2,300,000 in support of a reduction. Appraisal was considered qualified evidence and the PET did overcome the presumption of correctness. The petition has been granted to a reduction of $2,300,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00638: 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 did not established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is not enough competent evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has not met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by 2020-00638 Page 2 of 3 complying with F.S. 193.011. The Petitioner has demonstrated that the just value is not supported and has been granted a reduction. 2020-00638 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00640 31055001007 PROPERTY VALUATION SERVICES - KATIE 6825 DAVIS BLVD NAPLES, FL 34104 18,379,660.00 18,379,660.00 18,379,660.00 18,379,660.00 18,379,660.00 18,379,660.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,379,660.00 18,379,660.00 18,379,660.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Scott Watson 02/07/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk RECONSTRUCTED PETITIONER'S COST APPROACH ADDING IN RELEVANT COST APPROACH ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN A PROFESSIONAL COST APPROACH Replacement Cost New (RCN)$15,990,267 <from PET site improvements $500,000 <from PET Indirect costs $477,502 <from PAO ======================= RCN+site> $16,967,769 10.00% Ent.Profit $2,049,372 <land + building RCN $19,017,141 Depreciation: 12% ($2,282,057) ============ RCN - Depreciation $16,735,084 depreciated cost PAO's NOI (1yr.) $2,474,152 X 50% = $1,237,076 <lease-up costs (at a minimum) impact fees $625,951 <from PAO land $2,900,000 <from PAO ============ PET's CORRECTED COST APPROACH:$21,498,111 85.5% <SAR PAO's JUST VALUE >>>>> $18,379,660 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00641 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00641 76710010026 PROPERTY VALUATION SERVICES - KATIE 6855 DAVIS BLVD NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 8,592,903.00 8,592,903.00 8,592,903.00 8,592,903.00 8,592,903.00 8,592,903.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,592,903.00 8,592,903.00 8,592,903.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 02/07/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00641: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Mr. Jeep Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina & Mr. Chris DelPo, MAI. The Petitioner was represented by Ms. Katie McGee with Property Valuation Services via telephone. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a 60-unit memory care facility built in 2015. The subject’s address is 6855 Davis Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 59,538 SF situated upon a site of 181,210 SF (i.e. 4.16 acres). The subject is operated as “Villa at Terracina Grand”. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold since it was built. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $8,592,903, or $144/SF of adjusted building area. The subject’s just value increased by $299,712 (i.e. 3.6%) from the 2019 just value. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide the subject’s building permit application for $10M, the subject’s roster of building permits, business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach summary, support for impact fees, land sales map, land sales grid, land sales aerial photos/details, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & an investor survey from Realty Rates.com. In addition, the PAO provided the subject’s TPP (tangible personal property) information/assessment and internet marketing information from the subject’s web site, which includes various interior & exterior photographs. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $10.04/SF, based upon 9 land sales. The amount of $1,812,000 is a reconciled figure between $10/SF and a $30,000/unit indicator. The PAO also considers impact fees of $231,476 (which run with the land). The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. The PAO added the replacement cost new of the improvements, site improvements, indirect costs, entrepreneurial profit, and deducted for depreciation, resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate of $10,747,000 to support the subject’s just value of $8,592,903. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 8 improved sales. The first four closed in 2019, Sale #5 closed in 2018, the next 2 closed in 2016, and Sale #8 closed in 2013. Once again, the PAO reconciles a $/SF indicator ($190) and a $/unit indicator ($180,000) to a point estimate of $10.5M (after deducting for TPP in the amount of $451,177). The COS deduction was not yet applied, but the resulting SAR = 80%. The PAO considers 2 ‘trending’ sales that actually closed after the assessment date that reinforce the reasonableness of data from the 8 sales. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $72/SF of building area (gross), vacancy/collection loss at 25%, expenses at 65% of EGI, and applies a loaded cap rate of 9.7% [8.5% + 1.2%] to NOI of $1,125,268 for a value indication of $11,150,000 (before COS discount) & after making a TPP deduction of $451,177. 2020-00641 Page 2 of 5 The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. The PAO’s evidence is admissible, relevant, & credible. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted just 11 pages of evidence for this hearing. The PET submitted a copy of the hearing notice, power of attorney, subject’s TRIM notice, a 1-page Cost Approach (based upon Marshall Valuation data), a sales grid of 5 improved sales (with adjustment), an improved sales map, and back-up CoStar data related to those 5 sales. The PET includes a Cost Approach for the subject with a final value estimate of $7,970,000. However, the PET fails to include a variety of important components to a professionally prepared Cost Approach. I have added corrections to the PET’s figures in the attached exhibit. Where necessary, I borrowed inputs from the PAO’s analysis to fill in missing items. While I give no weight to the PET’s Cost Approach as presented in evidence, I do give weight to my corrections to her exhibit (see attached) that result in a corrected PET Cost Approach of $10,678,000 (before COS), which is more than sufficient to support the contested just value of $8,592,903. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET includes a vertical grid of 5 improved sales from Collier County. Sale #5 closed on March 20, 2020; thus, it is not timely for serious consideration (but only considered for trending purposes). Primary consideration is given to Sales #1-#4. It is worthy to note the PAO also used PET’s sales 2, 3 & 4. The PAO did not use PET’s sale #1 (on Marco Island), given it was vacant at the time of sale (and apparently remains vacant). The PET’s adjustments were applied and the PET only uses the $/SF indicator of $118.40 X 59,538 = $7,050,000 (rounded). The PET did not note or consider the sales on a per unit basis. Sale #5 (not timely for consideration) appears to be pulling down the PET’s average indicator; thus, resulting in a lower total value estimate via this approach. Sale #5’s fully adjusted $/SF indicator is just $54.66, which is far less than any of the other fully adjusted indicators. The PAO noted many of the building sizes of the PET’s improved sales were not correct; thus, many of the adjusted indicators just mentioned are incorrect. Therefore, I give the PET’s Sales Comparison little weight. The PET’s evidence is admissible, relevant, & credible (in the case of the Cost Approach after additional modifications for items missing from a normal Cost Approach). PET’s improved #5 is admissible for trending, but should not be a part of the PET’s average/SF calculations to determine value because it closed well after the assessment date. As stated, some of the PET’s sales have building sizes incorrectly reported. RULING: 1.The PAO’s land value ($1,812,000) + impact fees ($231,476) + building permit application ($10M) total $12,043,476. The contested just value equates to 71.3% of that figure; thus, the just value is easily supported. The actual sum of the individual permits pulled exceeded $11.6M, based upon the roster provided by the PAO. 2.The PET’s Cost Approach was lacking highly relevant items. For a high dollar property of this complexity, the PET’s depth of analysis and support presented is extremely weak. The PET indicates she has never visited the subject property or any of the comparable sales. The land value should be market-derived and the PET should not use the PAO’s allocated land portion of the assessment, as that is not appropriate for VAB hearings. The attached reconstructed Cost Approach uses the PET’s inputs as much as possible. Where 2020-00641 Page 3 of 5 items are lacking or missing, data is used from the PAO’s Cost Approach to demonstrate that the PET’s Cost Approach (IF PREPARED CORRECTLY) actually supports the contested just value with ample COS consideration. The PET’s improved sales analysis is weak because some sales have incorrect building sizes reported. The PET could have also considered the sales on a per unit basis & not just on a $/SF basis. The PAO prepared three approaches to value with sufficient detail and back-up documentation that a property of this complexity warrants. Given one of the two approaches used by the PET [when properly prepared & modified] actually supports the assessment, the greater weight of evidence supports the contested just value. In summary, the weight & preponderance of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED FILE FOR THE PET’S CORRECTED COST APPROACH. As many inputs as possible were obtained from the PET, and where missing or otherwise necessary were obtained from the PAO’s cost data. (Note: I imputed lease-up costs at half of one year’s NOI as provided in the PAO’s data, since the PET did not prepare an Income Approach.) Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00641: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00641 Page 4 of 5 Petition # 2020-641 RECONSTRUCTED PETITIONER'S COST APPROACH ADDING IN RELEVANT COST APPROACH ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN A PROFESSIONAL COST APPROACH Replacement Cost New (RCN)$6,097,799 <from PET site improvements $1,000,000 <from PET Indirect costs $225,651 <from PAO ======================= RCN+site> $7,323,450 10.00% Ent.Profit $913,545 <10% of land+RCN+site work RCN $8,236,995 Depreciation: 2% ($164,740) <from PET ============ RCN - Depreciation $8,072,255 depreciated cost PAO's NOI (1yr.) $1,125,268 X 50% = $562,634 <lease-up costs (at a minimum) impact fees $231,476 <from PAO land $1,812,000 <from PAO ============ PET's CORRECTED COST APPROACH:$10,678,365 80.5%<SAR PAO's JUST VALUE >>>>> $8,592,903 2020-00641 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00648 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00648 14150560004 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 185 LAKEDR NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 4,349,082.00 4,349,082.00 4,349,082.00 4,326,905.00 4,326,905.00 4,326,905.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4,276,905.00 4,276,905.00 4,276,905.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/26/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/26/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00648: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert and Karen Nowak. The hearing was opened and all parties were sworn in for the hearing. The hearing was held virtual as agreed upon by both the PAO and PET. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $4,349,082. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 185 Northlake Dr. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PET indicated that the subject sold in 2019 for $4,437,500. PET requested a cost of sale reduction and provided no actual market data evidence to support a reduction. The PAO provided market data to support the Just Value and is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00648: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there 2020-00648 Page 2 of 3 is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00648 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00650 Page 1 of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00650: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert and Karen Nowak. The hearing was opened and all parties were sworn in for the hearing. The hearing was held virtual as agreed upon by both the PAO and PET. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $5,466,671. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a vacant lot located at 3680 Fort Charles Dr. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. The PAO provided market data in support of the Just Value however is not entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. The PET provided evidence of a sale in 2019 for $5,250,000 in support of a reduction without market evidence from the PAO of market increases, the PET did overcome the presumption of correctness. The petition has been granted to a reduction of $5,250,000. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00650: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser did not established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is not enough competent evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the 2020-00650 Page 2 of 3 Property Appraiser has not met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011. The Petitioner has demonstrated that the just value is not supported and has been granted a reduction. 2020-00650 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00651 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00651 16056640000 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 4736 CRAYTON CT NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 2,201,029.00 2,201,029.00 2,201,029.00 2,201,029.00 2,201,029.00 2,201,029.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,201,029.00 2,201,029.00 2,201,029.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 02/06/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00651: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert and Karen Nowak. The hearing was opened and all parties were sworn in for the hearing. The hearing was held virtual as agreed upon by both the PAO and PET. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed just value of $2,201,029. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the property which is a single family home located at 4736 Crayton Ct. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO reiterated the 50-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data that has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, and exterior photographs of the subject. PAO developed the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach were not developed. The addenda contains photos of the comparable sales, and the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration, according to the PAO. Presented were sales of vacant properties, as well as improved properties in the subject community, which were used to develop a lot value. PET requested a cost of sale reduction and provided no actual market data evidence or credible analysis to support a reduction. The PAO provided market data to support the Just Value and is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00651: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there 2020-00651 Page 2 of 3 is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00651 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00653 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00653 29755001005 MCINTYRE, ROBERT & SYLVIANE 5776 DEAUVILLE CIR NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 135,736.00 135,736.00 135,736.00 135,736.00 135,736.00 135,736.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 85,736.00 85,736.00 85,736.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00653: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina and the Petitioner Robert Sylviane. The hearing was opened and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $135,736. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Property as a condominium. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. The Petitioner provided no evidence for the Special Magistrate to consider. Petitioner voiced a question regarding the Lanai [Porch] and how it was valued for tax purposes. PAO stated that they would get with the Petitioner after the hearing to discuss. No evidence was provided for consideration and therefore the PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00653: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00653 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00654 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00654: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not show and did not provide evidence for consideration. The hearing was opened and the SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $266,442. The TRIM value has not changed. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing. Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition or evidence reviewed in their absence. Petitioner has not provided a good cause statement for failure to appear or for a request for a rescheduled hearing. 2020-00654 Page 2 of 2 '(&,6,212)7+(9$/8($'-8670(17%2$5' (;(037,21&/$66,),&$7,21$66(660(17',))(5(1&( 75$16)(5&+$1*(2)2:1(56+,325&21752/ 2548$/,)<,1*,03529(0(173(7,7,21 The actions below were taken on your petition in These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision 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 # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Value before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Value after Board Action 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition Homestead Widow/er Blind Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Transfer of homestead assessment difference Totally and permanently disabled veteran Use classification, specify Use exemption, specify 4XDOLI\LQJLPSURYHPHQW Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties '5;& 5 5XOH' )$& (II &RXQW\ &KDQJHRIRZQHUVKLSRUFRQWURO 2020-00659 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00659 48649002227 DORNEVIL, MARC MONTES, ETILIA HYPOL 673 HADLEYSTE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 407,964.00 407,964.00 407,964.00 296,389.00 296,389.00 296,389.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 246,389.00 246,389.00 246,389.00 ✔ (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Ellen Chadwell 12/08/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/09/2020 ■ 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Ellen Chadwell Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact: Petitioner is Marc Montes Dornevil. Petitioner owns property located at 673 Hadley Street E, Naples, FL 34114. This petition is an appeal from the failure of the Property Appraiser to grant his application for a low income senior exemption for 2020. Petitioner was not present but did indicate on his Petition that he would not appear and wanted his evidence considered. Petitioner filed no evidence in the proceeding. The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) was represented by Annabel Ybaceta, Director of Exemptions and Customer Service, and Jennifer Earle, Supervisor of Exemptions. The PAO presented its 6-page evidence packet, which was admitted without objection, as PAO Composite Exhibit 1. As part of his application for the low income Seniors exemption, Petitioner completed and submitted a Sworn Statement of Adjusted Gross Income of Household and Return. (PAO Ex. 1, p. 6) The only information completed on the return was Petitioner's name, the name of his wife and his phone number. The return was signed by Petitioner. (PAO Ex. 1, p.6) The PAO made several attempts to obtain the household income information necessary to make a determination about the exemption. (Ybaceta) The PAO called Petitioner on multiple occasions and was able to speak to him and request the financial information. (Ybaceta) No information was ever provided to the PAO. No formal action was taken by the PAO on his application. (Ybaceta) Conclusions of Law: Section 196.075, Fla. Stat., provides for an additional homestead exemption for persons 65 or older under certain household income levels. Subsection (2)(a) provides an additional exemption up to $50,000, for a person who has attained the age of 65 and whose household income does not exceed $20,000. Section 196.075(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In order to request this exemption, a taxpayer must submit a sworn statement of household income in the form used by Petitioner. Subsection (5) goes on to require that the sworn statement of income be "supported by copies of any federal income tax returns for the prior year, any wage and earnings statements (W-2 forms), any request for an extension of time to file returns, and any other documents it [the Department of Revenue] finds necessary, for each member of the household. . .." Such information must be submitted for inspection by the property appraiser. Section 196.075(5), Fla. Stat. In addition, "the taxpayer’s sworn statement shall attest to the accuracy of the documents and grant permission to allow review of the documents if requested by the property appraiser." Section 196.075(5), Fla. Stat. Further, the statute prohibits the PAO from granting or renewing the exemption if the required documentation requested is not provided. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the 2020-00659 Page 2 of 3 PAO's action in this matter was wrong and that he is entitled to the low income senior exemption. In order to qualify for this exemption Petitioner needed to show a household income of $20,000 or less and to provide documentation to support the stated household income. He did neither. The only evidence presented in this case was an incomplete sworn statement signed by Petitioner. This evidence was relevant and credible and clearly showed that no income amount was stated in the return and no additional supporting documentation provided as required by the statute. Under these undisputed facts, the PAO could not lawfully grant Petitioner's request under the statute. Moreover, the PAO did not issue a denial as the application was incomplete and incapable of review as contemplated by s. 196.193, Fla. Stat. Consequently, no evaluation of the PAO's "notification" per s. 196.193(5), Fla. Stat., was deemed necessary, nor was one undertaken, by the Special Magistrate. The overall weight of the credible and relevant evidence presented in this hearing supported the PAO's action in this matter and a conclusion that Petitioner did not qualify for the low senior exemption. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof, and the Special Magistrate recommends that the Petition be denied. 2020-00659 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00669 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00669 01882040009 MIKE BEAUCHAMP / KE ANDREWS 2005 4TH STS NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 5,014,331.00 5,014,331.00 5,014,331.00 4,244,682.00 4,244,682.00 4,244,682.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,244,682.00 4,244,682.00 4,244,682.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/01/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00669: The PAO was represented by Jeep Quinby, Liz Molina, & Jenny Blaje. They were previously sworn in, yet did not need to testify at this hearing. The PET did not attend the hearing & did not submit any evidence for consideration. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance. Therefore, the PAO did not have to submit any evidence. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00669: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an aciton in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00669 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00670 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00670 13560002027 MIKE BEAUCHAMP / KE ANDREWS 1080 CENTRAL AVE NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 2,090,900.00 2,090,900.00 2,090,900.00 1,224,516.00 1,224,516.00 1,224,516.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,224,516.00 1,224,516.00 1,224,516.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/21/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00670: The Petitioner (PET) failed to appear, failed to check the box on the petition for non- attendance, and the Petitioner did not submit any evidence for consideration. Therefore, the property appraiser’s office (PAO) representatives were sworn in but did not need to testify. The PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00670: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00670 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00671 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00671 20761240008 MIKE BEAUCHAMP / KE ANDREWS 1101 1ST AVE S NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 906,759.00 906,759.00 906,759.00 532,102.00 532,102.00 532,102.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 532,102.00 532,102.00 532,102.00 (See Attached) The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. ✔ Lorraine Dube 12/05/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/08/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00671: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Ms. Liz Molina and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.C). SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $906,759. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2020-00671 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00672 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00672 20761840000 MIKE BEAUCHAMP / KE ANDREWS 1080 1ST AVE S NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 4,050,123.00 4,050,123.00 4,050,123.00 2,886,528.00 2,886,528.00 2,886,528.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,886,528.00 2,886,528.00 2,886,528.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/21/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00672: The Petitioner (PET) failed to appear, failed to check the box on the petition for non- attendance, and the Petitioner did not submit any evidence for consideration. Therefore, the property appraiser’s office (PAO) representatives were sworn in but did not need to testify. The PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00672: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00672 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00673 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00673 20762400009 MIKE BEAUCHAMP / KE ANDREWS 1080 1ST AVE S NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 2,447,231.00 2,447,231.00 2,447,231.00 1,416,212.00 1,416,212.00 1,416,212.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,416,212.00 1,416,212.00 1,416,212.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/18/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/21/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00673: The Petitioner (PET) failed to appear, failed to check the box on the petition for non- attendance, and the Petitioner did not submit any evidence for consideration. Therefore, the property appraiser’s office (PAO) representatives were sworn in but did not need to testify. The PAO’s just value is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00673: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00673 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00674 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00674 67292200004 MIKE BEAUCHAMP / KE ANDREWS 680 HICKORY RD NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 2,777,828.00 2,777,828.00 2,777,828.00 2,233,164.00 2,233,164.00 2,233,164.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,233,164.00 2,233,164.00 2,233,164.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 12/01/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 12/04/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00674: The PET did not attend the hearing & did not submit any evidence for consideration. The Petitioner did not check the box on the petition for non-attendance. Therefore, the PAO did not have to submit any evidence. The PAO's assessment is upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00674: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and the Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition and evidence heard without their attendance and a good cause request is not pending. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. The requested relief is denied and this recommended decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an aciton in circuit court is not impaired. 2020-00674 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00679 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00679 85000150661 SCOTT TYLER 2710 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 170,869.00 170,869.00 170,869.00 170,869.00 170,869.00 170,869.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 145,869.00 145,869.00 145,869.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00679: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00679 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $170,869. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00679 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00679 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00679: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00679. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00679 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00679 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00680 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00680 85000272028 SCOTT TYLER 2368 PINE RIDGERD NAPLES, FL 34105✔ ✔ 357,573.00 357,573.00 357,573.00 357,573.00 357,573.00 357,573.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 332,573.00 332,573.00 332,573.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00680: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00680 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $357,573. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00680 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00680 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00680: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00680. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00680 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00680 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00681 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00681 85000398892 SCOTT TYLER 684 BALD EAGLEDR MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 139,648.00 139,648.00 139,648.00 139,648.00 139,648.00 139,648.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 114,648.00 114,648.00 114,648.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00681: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00681 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $139,648. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00681 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00681 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00681: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00681. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00681 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00681 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00682 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00682 85000523670 SCOTT TYLER 3701 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 407,087.00 407,087.00 407,087.00 407,087.00 407,087.00 407,087.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 382,087.00 382,087.00 382,087.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00682: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00682 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $407,087. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00682 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00682 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00682: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00682. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00682 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00682 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00683 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00683 85000552942 SCOTT TYLER 5052 AIRPORT RDN NAPLES, FL 34105✔ ✔ 464,008.00 464,008.00 464,008.00 464,008.00 464,008.00 464,008.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 439,008.00 439,008.00 439,008.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00683: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00683 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $464,008. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00683 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00683 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00683: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00683. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00683 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00683 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00684 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00684 85000632558 SCOTT TYLER 13585 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34110✔ ✔ 810,968.00 810,968.00 810,968.00 810,968.00 810,968.00 810,968.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 785,968.00 785,968.00 785,968.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00684: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00684 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $810,968. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00684 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00684 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00684: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00684. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00684 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00684 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00689 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00689 85000717729 SCOTT TYLER 4383 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 409,325.00 409,325.00 409,325.00 409,325.00 409,325.00 409,325.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 384,325.00 384,325.00 384,325.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00689: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00689 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $409,325. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00689 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00689 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00689: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00689. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00689 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00689 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00691 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00691 85000294307 SCOTT TYLER 12450 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 153,907.00 152,058.00 152,058.00 153,907.00 152,058.00 152,058.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 128,907.00 127,058.00 127,058.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00691: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00691 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $152,058. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00691 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00691 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00691: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00691. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00691 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00691 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00692 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00692 85000335716 SCOTT TYLER 4857 GOLDEN GATE PKWY NAPLES, FL 34116✔ ✔ 68,541.00 65,515.00 65,515.00 68,541.00 65,515.00 65,515.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 43,541.00 40,515.00 40,515.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00692: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00692 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $65,515. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00692 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00692 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00692: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00692. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00692 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00692 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00696 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00696 85000649716 SCOTT TYLER 106 MAINST IMMOKALEE, FL 34142✔ ✔ 77,055.00 68,383.00 68,383.00 77,055.00 68,383.00 68,383.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 52,055.00 43,383.00 43,383.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00696: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00696 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $68,383. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00696 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00696 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00696: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00696. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00696 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00696 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00700 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00700 85000708709 SCOTT TYLER 225 NEW MARKETRDW IMMOKALEE, FL 34142✔ ✔ 74,290.00 59,574.00 59,574.00 74,290.00 59,574.00 59,574.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 49,290.00 34,574.00 34,574.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00700: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00700 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $59,574. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00700 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00700 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00700: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00700. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00700 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00700 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00701 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00701 85000729571 SCOTT TYLER 610 15THST IMMOKALEE, FL 34142✔ ✔ 92,995.00 78,016.00 78,016.00 92,995.00 78,016.00 78,016.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 67,995.00 53,016.00 53,016.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00701: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00701 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $78,016. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00701 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00701 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00701: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00701. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00701 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00701 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00702 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00702 85000737482 SCOTT TYLER 950 IMMOKALEE RD NAPLES, FL 34110✔ ✔ 155,737.00 146,544.00 146,544.00 155,737.00 146,544.00 146,544.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 130,737.00 121,544.00 121,544.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00702: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00702 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $146,544. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00702 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00702 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00702: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00702. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00702 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00702 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00711 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00711 85000724314 SCOTT TYLER 9100 STRADAPL NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 493,253.00 493,253.00 493,253.00 493,253.00 493,253.00 493,253.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 468,253.00 468,253.00 468,253.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/15/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/19/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00711: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $493,253. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00711 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00711 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00711: Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. 2020-00711 Page 4 of 5 The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00711 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00714 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00714 85000144693 SCOTT TYLER 3581 MERCANTILEAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 6,328,463.00 6,328,463.00 6,328,463.00 6,328,463.00 6,328,463.00 6,328,463.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 6,303,463.00 6,303,463.00 6,303,463.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00714: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00714 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $6,328,463. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00714 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00714 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00714: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00714. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00714 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00714 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00715 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00715 85000125366 SCOTT TYLER 2355 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 298,802.00 298,802.00 298,802.00 298,802.00 298,802.00 298,802.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 273,802.00 273,802.00 273,802.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00715: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00715 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $298,802. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00715 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00715 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00715: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00715. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00715 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00715 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00716 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00716 85000089790 SCOTT TYLER 1602 LAKE TRAFFORD RD IMMOKALEE, FL 34142✔ ✔ 538,613.00 538,613.00 538,613.00 538,613.00 538,613.00 538,613.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 513,613.00 513,613.00 513,613.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00716: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00716 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $538,613. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00716 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00716 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00716: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00716. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00716 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00716 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00717 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00717 85000153419 SCOTT TYLER 4849 GOLDEN GATE PKWY NAPLES, FL 34116✔ ✔ 761,974.00 761,974.00 761,974.00 761,974.00 761,974.00 761,974.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 736,974.00 736,974.00 736,974.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00717: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00717 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $761,974. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00717 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00717 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00717: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00717. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00717 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00717 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00718 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00718 85000365524 SCOTT TYLER 625 COLLIER BLVD MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145✔ ✔ 1,153,049.00 1,153,049.00 1,153,049.00 1,153,049.00 1,153,049.00 1,153,049.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 1,128,049.00 1,128,049.00 1,128,049.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00718: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00718 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $1,153,049. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00718 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00718 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00718: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00718. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00718 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00718 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00719 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00719 85000574975 SCOTT TYLER 7550 MISSION HILLS DR NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 1,185,957.00 1,185,957.00 1,185,957.00 1,185,957.00 1,185,957.00 1,185,957.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 1,160,957.00 1,160,957.00 1,160,957.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00719: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00719 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $1,185,957. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00719 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00719 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00719: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00719. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00719 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00719 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Decision Summary Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. if applicable *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Collier 2020-00722 85000678169 SCOTT TYLER 10600 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34108 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 420,189.00 420,189.00 420,189.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaweb2020 Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00723 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00723 85000029307 SCOTT TYLER 557 INDUSTRIALBLVD NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 5,145,749.00 5,145,749.00 5,145,749.00 5,145,749.00 5,145,749.00 5,145,749.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 5,120,749.00 5,120,749.00 5,120,749.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00723: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00723 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $5,145,749. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00723 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00723 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00723: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00723. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00723 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00723 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00724 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00724 85000726969 SCOTT TYLER 4540 DOMESTICAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 8,508,436.00 8,508,436.00 8,508,436.00 8,508,436.00 8,508,436.00 8,508,436.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 8,483,436.00 8,483,436.00 8,483,436.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00724: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00724 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $8,508,436. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00724 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00724 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00724: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00724. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00724 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00724 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00722 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00722 85000678169 SCOTT TYLER 10600 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 445,189.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 420,189.00 420,189.00 420,189.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00722: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00722 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $445,189. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00722 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00722 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00722: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00722. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00722 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00722 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00728 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00728 85000744938 SCOTT TYLER 4015 SANTA BARBARA BLVD NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 875,904.00 875,904.00 875,904.00 875,904.00 875,904.00 875,904.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 850,904.00 850,904.00 850,904.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00728: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00728 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $875,904. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00728 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00728 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00728: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00728. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices 2020-00728 Page 4 of 5 generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00728 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00729 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00729 85000748578 SCOTT TYLER 13080 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34114✔ ✔ 575,278.00 575,278.00 575,278.00 575,278.00 575,278.00 575,278.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 550,278.00 550,278.00 550,278.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00729: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00729 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $575,278. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00729 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00729 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00729: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00729. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00729 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00729 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00730 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00730 85000230390 SCOTT TYLER 1000 IMMOKALEE RD NAPLES, FL 34110✔ ✔ 124,038.00 124,038.00 124,038.00 124,038.00 124,038.00 124,038.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 99,038.00 99,038.00 99,038.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00730: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00730 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $124,038. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00730 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00730 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00730: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00730. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00730 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00730 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00731 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00731 85000747757 SCOTT TYLER 4251 9TH STN NAPLES, FL 34103✔ ✔ 28,494,857.00 1,599,438.00 1,599,438.00 28,494,857.00 1,599,438.00 1,599,438.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 28,494,857.00 1,574,438.00 1,574,438.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/22/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00731: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00731 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $1,599,438. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00731 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00731 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00731: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00731. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00731 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00731 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00732 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00732 85000185995 SCOTT TYLER 1565 5TH AVE S NAPLES, FL 34102✔ ✔ 248,238.00 248,238.00 248,238.00 248,238.00 248,238.00 248,238.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 223,238.00 223,238.00 223,238.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00732: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00732 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $248,238. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00732 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00732 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00732: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00732. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00732 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00732 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00733 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00733 85000397466 SCOTT TYLER 8010 TRAIL BLVD NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 159,714.00 159,714.00 159,714.00 159,714.00 159,714.00 159,714.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 134,714.00 134,714.00 134,714.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00733: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00733 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $159,714. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00733 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00733 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00733: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00733. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00733 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00733 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00734 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00734 85000637980 SCOTT TYLER 9005 MERCATO DR NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 467,715.00 467,715.00 467,715.00 467,715.00 467,715.00 467,715.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 442,715.00 442,715.00 442,715.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00734: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00734 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $467,715. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00734 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00734 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00734: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00734. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00734 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00734 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00735 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00735 85000678033 SCOTT TYLER 8930 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 336,062.00 336,062.00 336,062.00 336,062.00 336,062.00 336,062.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 311,062.00 311,062.00 311,062.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00735: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00735 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $336,062. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00735 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00735 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00735: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00735. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00735 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00735 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00736 Page 1 of 5 Collier ✔ 2020-00736 85000469844 SCOTT TYLER 3400 PROGRESSAVE NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 394,102.00 394,102.00 394,102.00 394,102.00 394,102.00 394,102.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 369,102.00 369,102.00 369,102.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Mark Pelletier 01/21/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/22/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Mark Pelletier Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00736: Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00736 Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Dan DeMorett, Robert Sandy, Angel Rodriguez, Gaylord Wood, P.A., Christopher Woolsey, P.A., and the Petitioner’s representative Scott Tyler. The hearing is an agreed telephone format and both the PAO and PET were sworn in. The POA and PET agreed that ALL petitions filed on behalf of each petitioner by Mr. Tyler would have the same evidence argument and ALL evidence would therefore be provided at this first petition hearing. SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $394,102. The TRIM value has not changed. PAO described the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern valuation estimate. PAO stated the following regarding the eighth criteria and that ALL the criteria were considered and satisfied. 1. Depreciation schedules used although dated tables and not updated, the Index factors are updated and considered. 2. An Orange County Case, Darden Restaurants, Inc. is truly relevant to ALL TPP valuations in Collier County. 3. Offerings and listings of personal property can provide some guidance however not full reliance. 4. Comparable sales data is consistently reviewed and updated by the PAO. As part of PAO’s evidence, the PAO’s report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data has been presented into the record, and this report applies to all 2020 petitions and forms part of PAO’s evidence in every petition. The report includes the evidence, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions and scope of the appraisal. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria as defined. The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. 2020-00736 Page 2 of 5 The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011 outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO with weight given to each of the factors within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate has determined that the evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET’s stated that the PAO’s assesses value does not represent the just value of the property. The PET’s evidence consisted of a Third-Party Methodology – Comparable Match Technique and a Market Based Depreciation Study. The PET used Internet Offerings and Sales of equipment. An Age/Life method was also used. The PET requested an economic obsolescence factor should be applied due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PET’s evidence was credible, relevant, and admitted for consideration. During testimony by the PAO and PET regarding the methodologies, data, studies and approaches of both the PAO and PET, the question I had to resolve regarding Just Value for TPP is as follows: Which evidence presented provides the best determination of the particular property in question using the methodologies, data, studies and approaches that best represent Just Value for the Tangible Personal Property Value as “In Continued Use – Going Concern. Fair Market Value in Continued Use for Tangible Personal Property is an opinion, expressed in terms of money, at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell 2020-00736 Page 3 of 5 and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, as of a specific date and assuming the business earnings support the value reported, without verification. Fair market value in continued use is the most encompassing value definition because assets are valued to include installation and assemblage costs and the costs to make the asset fully operational. This value also assumes that an owner would maintain the property in good condition because the going concern wants to continue to be profitable. In Continued Use is considered the highest level of trade. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser: reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. The proof of the correctness of value is of greatest importance over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined that the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. SM reviewed the evidence. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and/or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00736: Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00736. Florida Law requires the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment as the admitted evidence did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices to support and establish the just value by the Property Appraiser’s [PAO]. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with F.S. 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same 2020-00736 Page 4 of 5 county. The Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. 2020-00736 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00737 Page 1 of 5 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00737: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI, Ms. Jenny Blaje, & Ms. Liz Molina. The owner is MDSS Holdings, LLC. Ms. Ivy Irwin is the Petitioner (PET) representing the owner via telephone. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is an Auto Zone retail store built in 2007. The subject’s address is 5195 Golden Gate Parkway. The subject is almost an outparcel to Parkway Plaza shopping center. The adjusted building area is 6,795 SF situated upon a site of 36,250 SF (i.e. 0.83 acres) zoned CPUD. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject sold for $2,000,000 on January 10, 2019. This was a leased fee sale that also involved a 1031 Exchange. The contested just value equate to 81% of the $2M purchase price. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $1,620,426, or $238.47/SF of adjusted building area, or $44.70/SF of site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, possible witness list of PAO employees, aerial photographs, subject’s building sketch, exterior and interior photographs, location map, street location map, zoning map, regional & neighborhood market analysis, land sales summary grid, land sale location map, land sales aerials and brief details, Cost Approach exhibit, Sales Comparison summary grid, improved sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach exhibit, Income Approach exhibit, comparable sales photographs, PwC Cap Rate Analysis (4th Qtr. 2019), RealtyRates.com Investor Survey (3rd Qtr. 2020), RERC Regional South Investment Criteria (4th Qtr. 2019), CoStar retail statistics for Collier County for 2019, impact fee calculations, & the subject’s CoStar sale write- up. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated the building cost new at $778,684, site improvements at $60,737, indirect costs at $20,043, entrepreneurial profit at $159,415, less depreciation of $171,311 for a total Replacement Cost New (RCN - depreciation) of $847,568. The PAO provides 13 land sales (with good back-up documentation) with a mean of $26.97/SF & median of #$29.67/SF. The PAO estimates land value at $25.00/SF ($906,000), plus $93,339 of impact fees for a total of $999,339 (which is 61.7% of the total just value). The PAO gives greatest weight to his Land Sale #2 (on Tamimi Trail East) because it has a traffic count (42,000 ADT) very similar to the subject’s traffic count (50,000 ADT). The site size of Land Sale #2 is also very similar to the subject. The land value + impact fees is then added to the depreciated value of the improvements resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate by the PAO of $1,847,000 (before COS consideration). The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 11 fee simple sales from the Naples market area. The PAO also provides another grid of 5 leased fee sales. The fee simple sales are given greater significance, given the subject’s 2020-00737 Page 2 of 5 assessment is to be fee simple (by law). The $/SF indicators that range from $131-$636/ SF, but I disregard the first two sales because they were restaurant-oriented buildings that often tend to be higher. The average of the remaining 9 sales is $234.78 (without any time adjustment). Those 9 sales closed between 1/2015 – 4/2019 during a period of market appreciation. The PAO concludes $280/SF X 6,795 SF = $1,903,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). This appears reasonable from the data, given most of the sales with the higher traffic counts approaching the subject’s high level tend to be closer to $300/SF. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $25/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 5.0%, expenses [without taxes] at 20%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.0% to NOI of $129,105 for a value indication of $1,844,000, or $271.38/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches to a value of $1,875,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. The PAO’S evidence is admissible, relevant & credible. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The PET submitted 10 pages of evidence via 3 Axia downloads. The PET provides a ‘review of value & appeal position’ requesting a lower just value of $1.49M. The PET also presents an Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, balance sheet (12/31/2019), Quantum Pulse 2019 retail Intelligence report, & Integra Realty 2019 mid-year retail report. The PET includes a pro-forma Income Approach for the subject based upon $17.90/SF NNN, 7% V&C, EGI, 11% expenses (includes 3% reserves), and an unloaded cap rate of 7.0% [same as the PAO] applied to the NOI of $100,674 for a value of $1,438,194 (before any COS deduction). The PET also prepares a different version (also called ‘pro- forma’), yet it is based upon 2019 ‘actual’ financials with very similar inputs resulting in a value indication of $1,486,700. Overall, the PET’s Income Approach appears admissible, relevant, and credible, but it would have been more desirable for the PET to present specific rent comparable data. The PET only includes Integra asking rents for the Naples market for mid-year 2019 for neighborhood. Given this is a relatively simplistic property and not very large, the fact that the PET’s NOI is $28,431 less than the PAO’s NOI does make the PAO’s rent projection seem a little aggressive. COMPARABLE SALES: The PET presents two separate grids of sales. One is called “equity comps” (whatever that means) & consists of 4 sales. During the hearing, the PET said to disregard that exhibit and those 4 sales [which I deem irrelevant, lacking in credibility and inadmissible]. Next, the PET presents a grid of 2 improved sales during 2019 of similar size building areas. One sold for $138/SF, while the other sold for $228/ SF. There is no map, CoStar information, photographs, or other significant details. The PET gives little weight to the median/mean indication from these two sales of $182.68. Since the PET gives it little weight, I give it no weight for lack of other supporting documentation. The PET’s entire Sales Comparison Approach with 2 sale is admissible and somewhat relevant, but the sales lack credibility. RULING: The PET’s Sales Comparison Approach is given no weight (as just stated). The PET’s Income Approach presentation could benefit from more market-oriented rental information from the Naples area. The PET’s Income Approach (before COS) is 2020-00737 Page 3 of 5 almost $406,000 less than the PAO’s Income Approach Conclusion. Given this is a relatively simplistic property and not very large, the fact that the PET’s NOI is $28,431 less than the PAO’s NOI does make the PAO’s rent projection seem a little aggressive. In reference to the January 2021 sale of the subject for $2M, it should be noted that it was a leased fee sale that appears to be higher than the ‘fee simple’ value. In addition, there could have been other motivating factors to pay a higher price, given there was a 1031 Exchange involved. [Note: Just because a 1031 Exchange may exist in a given sale does not automatically mean the buyer paid a higher price; however, it certainly can be a motivating factor sometimes to pay a little extra in order to avoid paying capital gains tax resulting from an unsuccessful exchange.] The contested just value is 81% of that ‘leased fee’ purchase price, but again that price appears to be higher than ‘fee simple’ indication by all 3 of the PAO’s approaches and the PAO’s reconciled value fo $1,875,000. For this hearing, it appears the PAO’s reconciled value of $1.875M, less 15% COS = $1,593,750 is justified. This is because all 3 of the PAO’s approaches to value result in indicators that are LESS THAN the contested just value after considering a 15% deduction for COS to each approach. This indicates a reduction in the just value of $26,676 is warranted. The weight & preponderance of evidence suggests the PAO’s contested just value is slightly excessive and should be reduced to $1,593,750. The PET overcame the PAO’s presumption of correctness because the PAO did not adequately consider the COS deductions from all 3 of his approaches & reconciled value conclusion. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00737: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence 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 2020-00737 Page 4 of 5 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. 2020-00737 Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00738 Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00738: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Jeep Quinby, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI, Ms. Jenny Blaje, & Ms. Liz Molina. The owner is MDSS Holdings, LLC. Ms. Ivy Irwin is the Petitioner (PET) representing the owner via telephone. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a Waffle House restaurant built in 1989. The subject’s address is 6531 Dudley Drive in Naples. This location is at the Southwest quadrant of I-75 and Pine Ridge Road. It is also very close to two hotels in the subject’s immediate proximity. The adjusted building area is 1,621 SF situated upon a site of 21,984 SF (i.e. 0.50 acres) zoned PUD. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in recent years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s assessment of $682,082, or $420.87/SF of adjusted building area, or $31.03/SF of site area. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO did provide a cover page, possible witness list of PAO employees, aerial photographs, subject’s building sketch, exterior and interior photographs, location map, street location map, zoning map, regional & neighborhood market analysis, land sales summary grid, land sale location map, land sales aerials and brief details, Cost Approach exhibit, Sales Comparison summary grid, improved sales location map, Sales Comparison Approach exhibit, Income Approach exhibit, comparable sales photographs, PwC Cap Rate Analysis (4th Qtr. 2019), the Boulder Group’s ‘Casual Dining vs. Retail net Lease Market Cap Rates’ (1st Qtr. 2020), Avison Young (Net Lease Advisor) 1st Qtr. 2020 Survey, building permit applications (showing March 2020 renovation permit for $125,255), & impact fee calculations. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated the building cost new at $256,870, site improvements at $11,559, indirect costs at $2,659, entrepreneurial profit at $75,128, less depreciation of $179,810 for a total Replacement Cost New (RCN - depreciation) of $166,406. The PAO provides 13 land sales (with good back-up documentation) with a mean of $30,72/SF & median of $30,38/SF. The PAO estimates land value at $30.00/SF ($660,000), plus $67,100 of impact fees for a total of $727,100 (which exceeds the contested just value of $602,654). The land value + impact fees is then added to the depreciated value of the improvements resulting in a total Cost Approach estimate by the PAO of $893,500 (before COS consideration). The PAO does provided back-up cost information from Marshall Valuation, as well as impact fee calculations. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 10 sales from the Naples market area. The first 7 are leased fee sales, while the last 3 are fee simple sales (given greater weight). The PAO concludes $500/SF X 1,621 SF = $811,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach (before COS consideration). Given the subject’s building size is small (but in need of renovation), the PAO’s conclusion appears reasonable from the data. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $40/SF gross, vacancy/ 2020-00738 Page 2 of 4 collection loss at 5.0%, expenses [excluding real estate taxes] at 15%, and applies a loaded cap rate of 6.9% to NOI of $52,358 for a value indication of $759,000, or $468.23/SF (before COS consideration). The PAO reconciles his 3 approaches to a value of $810,000. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted 3 pages of evidence via 4 Axia downloads. Evidence by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET only provides a summary of information and an Income Approach in evidence. The PET’s Income Approach is improper because it is based upon the older lease & terms in place for the subject for 2019. It would seem that lease is very old & now expired, which is why the tenant is now doing a major renovation to the building. Regardless, the Income Approach is based upon the theory of anticipation of FUTURE benefits, not on what happened in the past. Also, the PET fails to address land value, which is a key component of value & H&BU in this case [per F.S. 193.011 (2)]. In a situation with a very small building on a small lot, the land value component should be investigated, as was done within the PAO’s Cost Approach. RULING: The PET’s presentation is extremely weak, given it only 3 pages of evidence were provided. The first page is a summary of assessment information, the 2nd page is a summary of the lease terms for the tenant for 2019, and the 3rd page is an Income Approach based upon 2019, which is the year prior to renovations taking place. The Income Approach is based upon the theory of anticipation of FUTURE benefits; thus, providing old lease terms negotiated many years ago is irrelevant. The PAO provided 3 approaches to value in support of the just value. Most significantly, the subject’s land value + impacts fees combined are enough to support the assessment. There is some degree of building shell benefit as well, as otherwise the whole structure would be demolished. Instead, the permits for renovation may gut the interior, yet leave the shell intact. The weight & preponderance of evidence is overwhelming in the PAO’s favor. If anything, the PAO’s estimate of land value appears understated for such a small site at an interstate interchange near two hotels. The subject site could be very attractive to a number of users (especially restaurants). The PAO’s just value is reasonable & should be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00738: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption 2020-00738 Page 3 of 4 of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser’s established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily 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. 2020-00738 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00743 Page 1 of 3 Collier ✔ 2020-00743 66760002162 RICK BROWN 6275 NAPLESBLVD NAPLES, FL 34109✔ ✔ 14,011,444.00 14,011,444.00 14,011,444.00 12,785,460.00 12,785,460.00 12,785,460.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,785,460.00 12,785,460.00 12,785,460.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/26/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/27/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00743: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not attend the hearing but submitted an email requesting that their submitted evidence be entertained. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is a big box Costco store. The subject was built in 1999 with additions in 2003 & 2019. The subject’s address is 6275 Naples Boulevard in Naples. The adjusted building area is 148,490 SF situated upon a site of 601,128 SF (i.e. 13.8 acres). PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject has not sold in the past 15 years. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s just value. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach, support for impact fees, building permit history, land sales map, land sales grid, land sales aerials/sale details, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/ back-up data for the comparable sales, & rent comparable data. Cap rate support is also provided from PwC, The Boulder Group, & Avison Young. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $18/SF ($10,820,000), based upon a grid of 10 land sales. Impact fees of $2.42M are considered, $10,528,018 RCN, & depreciation of $3,252,761. The total Cost Approach estimate equates to $20,515,000, which supports the contested just value of $14,011,444. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 12 improved sales. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 148,490 SF = $22,274,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $13/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 5%, expenses at 25% of EGI, and applies a loaded cap rate of 7.45% (6.25% + 1.20%) to NOI of $1,375,389 for a value indication of $18,462,000, or $124/ SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach, which is likely the best approach for a very large property that is often a build-to-suit situation. Land is also a significant component of value in this case, given it is $13,240,000 when combined with the impact fees. This is 94.5% of the contested just value of $14,011,444. It is apparent the building still does add significantly to value above and beyond the land value + impact fees. PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 7 total pages of evidence. The first page is a summary of the property; however, this PET uses a building area of that appears to be missing 9,926 SF of building area constructed after the subject was originally built in 1999. Next, the PET presents a 1-page Income Approach. Rent is 2020-00743 Page 2 of 3 projected at $7.50/SF NNN, vacancy at 3%, operating expenses at 3% and an unloaded cap rate of 7.5% is applied to the NOI of $977,812 resulting in a value indication of $13,037,487. In the final 5-page submittal the PET presents two rent comparables as support for his Income Approach revenue. One is a Hobby Lobby at $10/SF NNN signed in July 2016. The second rent comp is a 50,000 SF Big Lots store in Fort Myers with an asking rent of $5.00/SF NNN. RULING: The PET’s presentation is extremely weak with only 7 pages for this magnitude of a property. The PET only presents one approach (i.e. the Income Approach) based upon 2 rent comps ($5/SF NNN & $10/SF NNN) with no additional supporting documentation for any inputs or cap rate data. Furthermore, the PET fails to account for 9,926 SF of the subject’s building area. The construction permit alone for the later addition was reported at $2.2M; thus, if that figure (with some degree of soft costs & entrepreneurial profit) is added to the PET’s Income Approach estimate of $13.037M the contested just value would basically be supported. The PAO presents 3 approaches to value with reasonably good support in each approach. The greater weight of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00743: 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. 2020-00743 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00744 Page 1 of 4 Collier ✔ 2020-00744 00168040601 RICK BROWN 1100 IMMOKALEE RD NAPLES, FL 34108✔ ✔ 25,090,116.00 25,090,116.00 25,090,116.00 25,090,116.00 25,090,116.00 25,090,116.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,090,116.00 25,090,116.00 25,090,116.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Scott Watson 01/26/2021 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 01/27/2021 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Scott Watson Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00744: ATTENDEES: The PAO was represented in the hearing room by Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo, MAI., Mr. Jeep Quinby, & Ms. Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not attend the hearing but submitted an email requesting that their submitted evidence be entertained. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/TYPE: The subject is known as the Naples Daily News. The subject was built in 2009. The subject’s address is 1100 Immokalee Road in Naples. The adjusted building area is 201,375 SF situated upon a site of 864,666 SF (i.e. 19.85 acres). Per the PAO’s evidence, 64% of the building is office space, while 36% is either production or storage space. PRIOR SALE INFORMATION: The subject last open market sale of the subject was in 2006 for $23,075,000. The 2020 assessment of $25,090,116 is not much higher than that prior sale 14 years ago. The subject is currently listed for sale for $35M. PAO TESTIMONY/EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PAO is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PAO submitted all 3 traditional approaches to value to support the subject’s. As with all VAB hearings, the PAO did submit a separate package of FL statues and related DOR information, yet it is not evidence specific to this hearing & not worthy of elaboration in this ruling. The PAO provided the deed for the prior sale of the subject, business card list of PAO officials, Cost Approach, support for impact fees, building permit history, land sales map, land sales grid, land sales aerials/sale details, improved sales grid/map, fee simple Income Approach exhibit, color aerial photograph, zoning map, plat map, building sketch, Marshall Valuation support (for the Cost Approach), exterior building photographs, photographs/back-up data for the comparable sales, & rent comparable data. IN THE COST APPROACH, THE PAO estimated land value at $17/SF ($14,699,000), based upon a grid of 13 land sales impact fees of $781,927 are included, along with $20,817,669 for the depreciated value of the improvements. The total Cost Approach estimate equates to $36,299,000, which supports the contested just value. IN THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, THE PAO provides a roster of 6 sales & one listing (of the subject for $35M, or $174/SF). Two sales are in Naples, one in Sarasota, three in Lee County, and one in Sarasota. These are large sales that closed between 9/2014 and 8/2019. The PAO concludes $150/SF X 201,375 SF = $30,206,000 for the Sales Comparison Approach. IN THE INCOME APPROACH, THE PAO projects rent at $14.48/SF gross, vacancy/ collection loss at 5%, expenses at 20% of EGI, and applies a loaded cap rate of 8.0% (6.8% + 1.20% to NOI of $2,215,682 for a value indication of $27,696,000, or $137.53/ SF. The PAO does establish the presumption of correctness at this hearing, mainly based upon the better data presented for the Cost Approach, which is likely the best approach for a very large property that is often a build-to-suit situation. Land is also a significant component of value in this case, given it is $14.699M. The subject’s listing price of $35M very possibly could be aggressive, given the contested just value is almost $10M less. 2020-00744 Page 2 of 4 PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE: The evidence submitted by the PET is considered relevant and credible, unless noted otherwise. The PET submitted 6 total pages of evidence. The first page is a summary of the property; however, this PET uses a building area of 186,503 SF. The PET is missing 14,872 SF of building area. The PET only presents 2 sales. PET’s sale #1 is the PAO’s sale #2. PET’s sale #3 is PAO’s sale #3 (both in Lee County). RULING: The subject is not an easy single-user property to compare to the market, given the subject’s building is large (i.e. more than 200,000 SF) and the site area is also fairly large at almost 20 acres. Properties of this size do not trade all that frequently in Southwest Florida. Rents of such properties are rare, given usually an owner-user would normally create this type of property on a build-to-suit basis specific for their needs. The subject’s assessment equates to $29.02/SF of its land area. As one means of comparison, PAO sales 1, 3, & 5 have similar indicators of $32.90, $29.23, and $40.48/SF, respectively to lend some degree of support. The subject’s listing price is also supportive of the contested just value. Another piece of evidence in support of the PAO’s assessment is the subject’s prior sale in 2006 for $23,075,000, given there has been price appreciation over the past 7+ years especially. The PET’s presentation is extremely weak by comparison with only 6 pages. Furthermore, the PET fails to account for 14,872 SF of the subject’s building area. The PET fails to actually provide a value estimate from the data provided. There is no discussion, adjustments applied, or reasoning as to what a more appropriate value should be. The greater weight of evidence favors the PAO. It is recommended the PAO’s assessment be upheld. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00744: 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 2020-00744 Page 3 of 4 just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 2020-00744 Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00749 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00749 00388400005 TERRI PATTON, MAI 2001 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 491,520.00 491,520.00 491,520.00 356,843.00 356,843.00 356,843.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 356,843.00 356,843.00 356,843.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/06/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00749: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. The Petitioner (PET) was not present, but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Terri Pattons, from Anderson & Associates, Real Estate Appraisers and Tax Consultants, submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Two contiguous parcels are being valued as one parcel. The property is improved with one building that has 80 storage units and the remaining space is retail/warehouse space used as a U-Haul center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just value of ($491,520 for petition # 2020-00749), and a just value of ($823,897 for petition # 2020-00750) for a total just value of $1,315,417. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story self-storage facility (80 units) and retail/ warehouse space. The total building area is 12,198-sf. The land size for these 2 parcels is 34,488-sf or .79 acres; (there is an additional parcel contiguous to these two parcels that forms part of the property that has not been included in this hearing. The excluded parcel contains 18,965-sf). The building was built in 1962 and 1974. The properties are located at 2001 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market 2020-00749 Page 2 of 8 value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 107 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 11 land sales, and one listing; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 6/16 to 4/20. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 139,657-sf including the listing. The unadjusted sales range from $15.19 to $60.42/sf, including the listing. The mean of all the sales is $27.07/sf and the median is $23.62/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $25.00/sf or $862,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $728,406, the land value is estimated at $862,000 for a total cost of $1,590,000 rounded. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 9 sales of retail and warehouse properties in Naples. The sales occurred from 10/16 to 12/19. The sales range in building size from 2,952-sf to 126,312-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 6,120-sf to 413,820-sf. The buildings were built from 1957 to 2003. The sales range from $107.84 to $229.68/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $164.00/sf and a median of $158.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $150.00/sf of building area including land or $1,830,000 rounded. 2020-00749 Page 3 of 8 PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided 6 confidential (from property owners) self-storage rent comparables, located in Naples. The rents range from $17.60/sf to $20.52/sf with a mean of $18.85; the effective rents (discounts for free rent), range from $15.74 to $20.52/sf. with a mean of $17.30. PAO also provided 13 advertised rents from competing self-storage properties; the overall average effective rents range from $13.23/sf to $29.37/sf with a mean of $18.91/sf. For the retail space, PAO provided 6 confidential rents for first floor space, in freestanding buildings and strip centers, that range in size from 4,500-sf to 20,000-sf. The triple net rents range from $8.00 to $22.75/sf, with a mean of $17.94/sf. PAO provided 3 comparable rents, of strip centers, from CoStar, that range from 1,300-sf to 5,700-sf; the triple net rents range from $11.50-$18.00/sf, with a mean of $14.50/sf. PAO estimated a gross rent of $18.00/sf for the climate controlled self-storage units (4,684-sf) and the retail space (5,953-sf) for a total of 10,637-sf and a potential gross income of $191,466. PAO provided vacancy support, from confidential sources in Collier County and CoStar. The self-storage vacancies range from 6.25% to 13%. CoStar, 2019 year-end report, indicates an overall retail vacancy at 5% and general retail vacancies at 2.6%. PAO concluded a vacancy for the retail space at 5%. The overall vacancy used by PAO for the self-storage and retail space is 10% or $19,147. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The operating expense ratios, (expenses divided by EGI) and the expenses per square foot range from 18%% to 30% with a mean of 27.83% and 28% to 55% or $3.45/sf to $7.01/sf; the expenses do not include real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 35% of effective gross income (EGI) or $60,312 or $5.67/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $112,007.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 6 sales of self-storage facilities located in Collier and Lee Counties; the sales were reported by CoStar from March 2016 to May 2019. The cap rates range from 4.00% to 8.00% with a mean of 6.17% and a median of 5.95%. PAO provided cap rates from general retail properties that sold from February 2019 to August 2019, in Naples FL; the cap rates range from 5.4% to 8.78% with a mean of 6.85% and a median of 6.87%. PAO provided the cap rate for general retail and self-storage from sold properties in SW Florida; the rates were taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Realty Rates Investor Survey, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources for self-storage facilities ranges from 4.50% to 7.00% with an average of 7.11%; the cap rates for retail space ranges from 4% to 8% with an average of 7.37%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.5% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.70%. 2020-00749 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of $112,007.00 capitalized at 7.70% indicates a value of $1,455,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion for both parcels is: $1,315,417.00. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2020-00749 Page 5 of 8 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 11 pages and included a cover letter, advertised self-storage rents at the subject, with unit sizes and a sketch of the units. PET included the occupancy vacancy/unit mix for rates and unit count as well as the monthly and yearly totals for each; PET provided occupancy vacancy unit mix and percentage graphs. PET provided the profit and loss statement for 6 years on the subject, market support for cap rates for self-storage and the Income Approach. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach only on the self-storage units only. PET did not include the retail portion of the property in their analysis. The advertised rents, for self-storage units, at the subject range from $14.52 to $27.12/sf, with an average of $20.85/sf. PET used a rent of $19.12/sf on an area of 6,245-sf for a potential gross income from the self-storage units of $119,412, PET added other income of $2,406.00 for a total potential gross income of $121,818 2020-00749 Page 6 of 8 The actual vacancy for the subject as of 9/20 was 6.25% as reported by PET. PET used an overall vacancy of 15% or $18,273.00 PET estimated the operating expenses, from the profit and loss statement at 38% of EGI or $39,347.00 The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $64,198.00. PET provided support for the cap rate from national survey, Realty Rates.com Investor Survey, the survey indicates a range of 4.42% to 14.14% with an average range of 8.53% to 9.70%, for self-storage facilities. PET used a cap rate of 8%. The NOI of $64,198 capitalized at 8.00% indicates a value of $802,476. As rebuttal, PAO indicated their older improved sales are indicative of today’s values and were used as such. PAO commented that PET’s vacancy at 6.25% is low and is reported as of 9/20, a period of covid19 where self-storage facilities are in demand. PAO indicated PET did not indicate how the property fits into the market; the Future Land Use for the subject is for a Commercial Mixed-Use Development in the Gateway Triangle. The district, where the property is located, is intended to revitalize the commercial and residential development, promote urban design with human scale, pedestrian-oriented interconnected projects. PAO indicated the profit and loss statement indicates that income has increased over the years. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET did not include the retail portion of the property in their analysis; the retail and self-storage units are in the same building. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00749: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s 2020-00749 Page 7 of 8 valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. Just Value are reported as follows: Petition 2020-00749 - $491,520 Petition 2020-00750 - $823,897 2020-00749 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00750 Page 1 of 8 Collier ✔ 2020-00750 77510160007 TERRI PATTON, MAI NAPLES, FL 34112✔ ✔ 823,897.00 823,897.00 823,897.00 524,303.00 524,303.00 524,303.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 524,303.00 524,303.00 524,303.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/06/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/12/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00750: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Christopher DelPo. The Petitioner (PET) was not present, but requested that their evidence and petition be heard and considered in their absence. The agent for PET, Terri Pattons, from Anderson & Associates, Real Estate Appraisers and Tax Consultants, submitted the evidence. PAO’s were sworn in. SM read the petitioner numbers. Two contiguous parcels are being valued as one parcel. The property is improved with one building that has 80 storage units and the remaining space is retail/warehouse space used as a U-Haul center. PAO confirmed the folio numbers, and just value of ($491,520 for petition # 2020-00749), and a just value of ($823,897 for petition # 2020-00750) for a total just value of $1,315,417. The values have not changed since the TRIM notice. PAO described the property as a one-story self-storage facility (80 units) and retail/ warehouse space. The total building area is 12,198-sf. The land size for these 2 parcels is 34,488-sf or .79 acres; (there is an additional parcel contiguous to these two parcels that forms part of the property that has not been included in this hearing. The excluded parcel contains 18,965-sf). The building was built in 1962 and 1974. The properties are located at 2001 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market 2020-00750 Page 2 of 8 value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. PAO presented a report containing 107 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, definitions, scope of work, aerials and photographs of the subject, location map, regional and neighborhood market analysis, site and improvement descriptions, market analysis, highest and best use. PAO included a land valuation with a land sales chart and the depreciated cost of the improvements; the Sales Comparison Approach with charts of improved sales, location map of the land sales and improved sales; the Income Approach with comparable rents, vacancy, operating expense and capitalization rates (cap rate) analysis; limiting conditions and assumptions. PAO included the deed with legal description; impact fees; individual sheets with description of the land sales and improved sales with photographs or aerials; support for the overall cap rate; property record card and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 11 land sales, and one listing; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales are located in Naples and Collier County. The land sales occurred from 6/16 to 4/20. The land sales range in size from 13,860-sf to 139,657-sf including the listing. The unadjusted sales range from $15.19 to $60.42/sf, including the listing. The mean of all the sales is $27.07/sf and the median is $23.62/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $25.00/sf or $862,000 rounded. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual, calculator method. Depreciated building cost, including site improvements, has been estimated at $728,406, the land value is estimated at $862,000 for a total cost of $1,590,000 rounded. PAO presented the Sales Comparison Approach and included 9 sales of retail and warehouse properties in Naples. The sales occurred from 10/16 to 12/19. The sales range in building size from 2,952-sf to 126,312-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from 6,120-sf to 413,820-sf. The buildings were built from 1957 to 2003. The sales range from $107.84 to $229.68/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $164.00/sf and a median of $158.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $150.00/sf of building area including land or $1,830,000 rounded. 2020-00750 Page 3 of 8 PAO presented the Income Approach. PAO provided 6 confidential (from property owners) self-storage rent comparables, located in Naples. The rents range from $17.60/sf to $20.52/sf with a mean of $18.85; the effective rents (discounts for free rent), range from $15.74 to $20.52/sf. with a mean of $17.30. PAO also provided 13 advertised rents from competing self-storage properties; the overall average effective rents range from $13.23/sf to $29.37/sf with a mean of $18.91/sf. For the retail space, PAO provided 6 confidential rents for first floor space, in freestanding buildings and strip centers, that range in size from 4,500-sf to 20,000-sf. The triple net rents range from $8.00 to $22.75/sf, with a mean of $17.94/sf. PAO provided 3 comparable rents, of strip centers, from CoStar, that range from 1,300-sf to 5,700-sf; the triple net rents range from $11.50-$18.00/sf, with a mean of $14.50/sf. PAO estimated a gross rent of $18.00/sf for the climate controlled self-storage units (4,684-sf) and the retail space (5,953-sf) for a total of 10,637-sf and a potential gross income of $191,466. PAO provided vacancy support, from confidential sources in Collier County and CoStar. The self-storage vacancies range from 6.25% to 13%. CoStar, 2019 year-end report, indicates an overall retail vacancy at 5% and general retail vacancies at 2.6%. PAO concluded a vacancy for the retail space at 5%. The overall vacancy used by PAO for the self-storage and retail space is 10% or $19,147. PAO provided support for operating expenses from confidential data provided to Collier County from property owners. The operating expense ratios, (expenses divided by EGI) and the expenses per square foot range from 18%% to 30% with a mean of 27.83% and 28% to 55% or $3.45/sf to $7.01/sf; the expenses do not include real estate taxes. PAO used an expense ratio of 35% of effective gross income (EGI) or $60,312 or $5.67/sf. The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $112,007.00. PAO supported the overall capitalization rate (cap rate) by providing the cap rate derived from 6 sales of self-storage facilities located in Collier and Lee Counties; the sales were reported by CoStar from March 2016 to May 2019. The cap rates range from 4.00% to 8.00% with a mean of 6.17% and a median of 5.95%. PAO provided cap rates from general retail properties that sold from February 2019 to August 2019, in Naples FL; the cap rates range from 5.4% to 8.78% with a mean of 6.85% and a median of 6.87%. PAO provided the cap rate for general retail and self-storage from sold properties in SW Florida; the rates were taken from real estate market survey companies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Realty Rates Investor Survey, Cushman & Wakefield and CoStar (3rd and 4th Q 2019). The average cap rate from these sources for self-storage facilities ranges from 4.50% to 7.00% with an average of 7.11%; the cap rates for retail space ranges from 4% to 8% with an average of 7.37%. PAO used a cap rate of 6.5% and loaded the tax rate of 1.2% for a total cap rate of 7.70%. 2020-00750 Page 4 of 8 The NOI of $112,007.00 capitalized at 7.70% indicates a value of $1,455,000 rounded. PAO’s just value conclusion for both parcels is: $1,315,417.00. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of 2020-00750 Page 5 of 8 neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and depreciated replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach and Income Approach; (7) Income – PAO applied the Income Approach using current market or actual rents in the subject neighborhood, current vacancy rates and expenses as well as current capitalization rates; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. PET was not present, however submitted evidence to be presented in their absence. Special Magistrate (SM) presented PET’s evidence. PET’s evidence consisted of 11 pages and included a cover letter, advertised self-storage rents at the subject, with unit sizes and a sketch of the units. PET included the occupancy vacancy/unit mix for rates and unit count as well as the monthly and yearly totals for each; PET provided occupancy vacancy unit mix and percentage graphs. PET provided the profit and loss statement for 6 years on the subject, market support for cap rates for self-storage and the Income Approach. PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET developed the Income Approach only on the self-storage units only. PET did not include the retail portion of the property in their analysis. The advertised rents, for self-storage units, at the subject range from $14.52 to $27.12/sf, with an average of $20.85/sf. PET used a rent of $19.12/sf on an area of 6,245-sf for a potential gross income from the self-storage units of $119,412, PET added other income of $2,406.00 for a total potential gross income of $121,818 2020-00750 Page 6 of 8 The actual vacancy for the subject as of 9/20 was 6.25% as reported by PET. PET used an overall vacancy of 15% or $18,273.00 PET estimated the operating expenses, from the profit and loss statement at 38% of EGI or $39,347.00 The net operating income (NOI) is estimated at $64,198.00. PET provided support for the cap rate from national survey, Realty Rates.com Investor Survey, the survey indicates a range of 4.42% to 14.14% with an average range of 8.53% to 9.70%, for self-storage facilities. PET used a cap rate of 8%. The NOI of $64,198 capitalized at 8.00% indicates a value of $802,476. As rebuttal, PAO indicated their older improved sales are indicative of today’s values and were used as such. PAO commented that PET’s vacancy at 6.25% is low and is reported as of 9/20, a period of covid19 where self-storage facilities are in demand. PAO indicated PET did not indicate how the property fits into the market; the Future Land Use for the subject is for a Commercial Mixed-Use Development in the Gateway Triangle. The district, where the property is located, is intended to revitalize the commercial and residential development, promote urban design with human scale, pedestrian-oriented interconnected projects. PAO indicated the profit and loss statement indicates that income has increased over the years. PET was not present at the hearing and did not provide rebuttal evidence. SM reviewed the evidence PAO provided good support for the value using the three approaches to value. PET did not include the retail portion of the property in their analysis; the retail and self-storage units are in the same building. PET did not demonstrate that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00750: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate and that PAO did not use appraisal practices which are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties in the same county. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s 2020-00750 Page 7 of 8 valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, PAO used proper methodology and properly considered the 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO is entitled to the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness by showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). PET’s value is understated. Special Magistrate has determined that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record in compliance with the criteria of 193.011 and professionally acceptable appraisal practices to support the just value by the Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Property Appraiser has met the burden to maintain the presumption of correctness by complying with FS 193.011, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the just valuation by the Property Appraiser exceeds the just value of the subject property or that the just value is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In view of the foregoing, the Special Magistrate recommends that the just value by the Property Appraiser be upheld and further relief be denied for this Petition. Just Value are reported as follows: Petition 2020-00749 - $491,520 Petition 2020-00750 - $823,897 2020-00750 Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00751 Page 1 of 6 Collier ✔ 2020-00751 68742440009 PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS 4788 OAK LEAFDR NAPLES, FL 34119✔ ✔ 1,569,912.00 1,389,788.00 1,274,000.00 1,569,912.00 1,389,788.00 1,274,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,569,912.00 1,389,788.00 1,274,000.00 (See Attached) (See Attached) ✔ Lorraine Dube 11/19/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/25/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00751: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Ms. Jenny Blaje, Ms. Liz Molina, Mr. Jack Redding, Mr. Chris DelPo and Mr. Clyde Quinby. On the telephone, was the agent for the Petitioner (PET), Mr. Johnathan MacDonald, from Property Tax Professionals. PAO and PET were sworn in. SM read the petitioner number. PAO confirmed the folio number, and just value of $1,389,788. The TRIM value has changed from $1,569,912. PAO described the property as a two-story single-family dwelling with a base building area of 4,146-sf and an adjusted building size of 6,391-sf. The adjusted size accounts for the square footage of the garage, lanai, porches and overhangs, and are assigned a certain percentage of the area of the particular space based on the amount of finish. The land size is .82 acres. The property was built in 1995 with an effective age of 2000. The property sold in May 2019 for $1,400,000, and the property had been renovated. The property is located at 4788 Oak Leaf Drive, Naples FL. As part of PAO’s evidence, PAO presented a 54-page report on the Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data. The Level of Assessment and Equalization Support Data report contains Collier County’s statement of compliance, Florida real property guidelines, two Florida Department of Revenue Attorney opinion letters, attorney opinion letter on the eighth criterion, case law on the eighth criterion 2nd District Court of Appeals, Administrative court findings PTO Bulletin 11-01, Levy Law Firm, Bond Schoeneck & King (2016 VAB Attorney), Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.021, 12D-9.024, 12D-10.003, Florida Department of Revenue Sales Qualification Study, Form DR-493, Traffic counts in various locations in Collier County, level of assessment statistics for various locations on Collier County. This report explains the methods used in mass appraisals and how Collier County applies the eighth criteria defined as: (The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or a typical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.”) PAO indicated that the just value of properties in Collier County includes the Cost of Sales adjustment of up to 15% made to the recorded selling prices or fair market value. Collier County groups their properties by stratum and the properties within a stratum are put on a bell curve-50% of the properties within a stratum are assessed at below market value and 50% are assessed above market value with the median being at about 85%. Therefore, Collier County does not apply a downward adjustment of up to 15% to the recorded selling price. 2020-00751 Page 2 of 6 PAO presented a report containing 37 pages. The report included the evidence and witness list, summary of salient facts and conclusions, value indications, definitions, limiting conditions and assumptions, scope of the appraisal, zoning, aerials, location map, exterior photographs of the subject and sketch of the building. PAO developed the Cost Approach and Sales Comparison Approach only, the Income Approach was not developed. The addenda contains photos and building sketch of the comparable building sales, the sales history for the subject and listing sheet with details of the subject with interior and photos. PAO included the property record card. PAO considered the 8 criteria from Section 193.011 F.S. The evidence presented by PAO was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PAO’s presented the Cost Approach which consisted of 4 residual land sales in the subject neighborhood; and a cost summary with supporting Marshall and Swift cost estimates for the building. The land sales, which are residual land sales are all in subject neighborhood. The sales occurred from April 2019 to June 2019. The sales have a front footage (FF) range of 145.85 FF to 214.14 FF; the subject has 182.80FF. The price/FF ranges from $1,252.00 to $3,138.00/FF. PAO reconciled the land value at $2,100/FFx1.07x182.80FF= $410,752. PAO developed the building cost using Marshall and Swift, a recognized construction cost manual. The depreciated site improvements are estimated at $30,000, the depreciated building cost is estimated at $1,155,073, the land value is estimated at $410,752 for a total cost of $1,595,825. PAO presents the Sales Comparison Approach and includes 4 improved sales in the neighborhood, including the sale of the subject. The sales occurred from April 2019 to June 2019. The sales range in building size from 5,031-sf to 6,391-sf; the land size for these sales have a FF ranges from 145.85 FF to 214.1400 FF. The buildings were built from 1992 to 2010. Adjustments were made to the sales as compared to the subject for lot size, building size, age and quality, and features or amenities. The adjusted sales range from $219.00 to $265.00/sf of building area including land, with a mean of $243.00/sf and a median of $244.00/sf. PAO reconciled a value at $244.00/sf of building area including land or $1,559,000 rounded. PET’s evidence consisted of a 31-page report which included a cover page, Form DR 493, the property record card, improved sales with characteristic of each property, with listings on each sale with photos and location map. PET included a letter from attorney Benjamin Phipps to representative John Wood concerning DOR legislative proposal- response to Gaylord Wood dated March 26, 2013. PET developed the Sales Comparison Approach only. 2020-00751 Page 3 of 6 All of PET’s evidence was considered credible, relevant and was admitted for consideration. PET provided 7 sales of properties in subject neighborhood. The sales sold from 4/19 to 4/20. The sales range in building size from 3,887-sf to 5,834-sf; the land size for these sales ranges from .70 to 1.18 acres. The buildings were built from 1984 to 1995. The sales range from $198.53/sf to $282.97/sf. PET did not provide adjustments to the sales. PET indicated the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value at $1,400,000 less cost of sales of 15% = $1,190,000. The Property Appraiser is required by Florida Statutes (F.S.) to assess real property at its just value as of January 1 of each year, F.S. 192.042 (1). The phrase “just value” has been determined to be synonymous with “fair market value”. See Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1989). Further, an assessment challenge must stand or fall on its own validity, unconnected with the assessment of any prior or subsequent year. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, 220 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The Department of Revenue (DOR) has developed specific evidence rules for presenting relevant and credible evidence. See Rule 12D-9.025 (1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Generally, “relevant evidence” is evidence that is reasonably related, directly or indirectly, to the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under review. This description means the evidence meets or exceeds a minimum level of relevance necessary to be admitted for consideration, although it does not necessarily mean that the evidence has sufficient relevance to legally justify a particular conclusion. See Rule 12D-9.025(2)(b), F.A.C. The Legislature has enacted eight factors which a property appraiser must consider when determining just valuation, which are enumerated in F. S. 193.011. In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with F.S. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. See Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521), and Section 193.011, F.S. A taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. F.S. 193.011outlines eight factors that must be considered to make a just value determination for each property. Refer to F.S.194.301, as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521) and F.S. 193.011. The eight criteria specified in Florida Statute 193.011 were considered by the PAO in the following manner: (1) Present cash value - PAO applied the Sales Comparison Approach to the subject 2020-00751 Page 4 of 6 utilizing arm’s length transfers of competitive properties presumably under normal market conditions. (2) Highest and best use - land use and building codes representing highest and best use of the property were applied which were consistent with the current use; (3) Location - PAO considers locational features of the subject through the use of neighborhood codes as identified on the Property Record Card (PRC); (4) Quantity or size - the subject’s size was considered based primarily on land and building areas as identified on the PRC; (5) Cost and present replacement value - PAO includes a land value from recent sales and replacement cost for the building; (6) Condition - The condition of the subject was factored into the estimated value via the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach; (7) Income – PAO did not develop the Income. This approach is typically not developed for single family dwellings; (8) Net proceeds of sale - the PAO considers costs of sale as previously explained in the 54-page report submitted. The weight given to each of the factors is within the discretion of the property appraiser; reliance on a particular approach is dependent upon the type of property being assessed. Id.: Atlantic International Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919,929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ultimately, the proof of the correctness of value is paramount over the emphasis placed on the applicability of one particular method of value over another. Special Magistrate determined the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment was appropriate and in compliance with criteria of F.S. 193.011, as well as consistent with professionally accepted appraisal practices. PAO is entitled to the Presumption of Correctness. As rebuttal, PAO indicted that 2 of the 7 sales presented, by PET, sold in the year 2020, after the date of appraisal of 1/1/2020. PAO indicated appreciation has occurred since the sale of the subject in May 2019 to the date of appraisal of 1/1/20. PAO indicated that one of PET’s sales required over $800,000 in repairs from the hurricane. PET made no adjustments to the sales. As rebuttal, PET indicated that the sale of the subject is the best indicator of value. Special Magistrate (SM) has reviewed the evidence. PAO provided adequate sales on subject street. PAO’s sale # 3 was built in 2010 and is newer than the subject (superior); PAO made a positive adjustment to this sale rather than a negative adjustment; this would indicate an mean of $239.00/sf for the sales. The subject property sold in May 2019 and this sale is the best indicator of value. PAO indicated this was a cash transaction and cost of sales are less than 15%. SM has applied a cost of sales of 9% to the sale price of $1,400,000 for an indicated value of $1,274,000. 2020-00751 Page 5 of 6 PET demonstrated that PET’s evidence was more credible, more relevant and or more sufficient than PAO’s evidence. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2020-00751: Pursuant to Section 194.301 and Rule 12D-9.027(2)(a), the Property Appraiser’s assessment shall be entitled to a Presumption of Correctness if the PAO shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the PAO considered each of the eight criteria set forth in Section 193.011 and that the appraisal methodology utilized by the PAO in making the assessment is appropriate. The Presumption of Correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the PAO’s valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, FS. and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, the PAO used proper methodology and properly considered all 8 criteria in establishing value. The PAO established the presumption of correctness. In administrative reviews of just valuation, the Petitioner can overcome the Presumption of Correctness my showing that the PAO’s assessed value: A. Is arbitrarily based upon appraisal practices that are different than the appraisal practices generally applied by the PAO to comparable properties within the same county: or B. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property. (See subsection 194.301(2), F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House Bill 521). The value estimate provided by PAO is overstated. PET has overcome the presumption of correctness. Rule 12D-9.027(3)(a) states that if the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or SM shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or SM is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties. SM revised the just value from the evidence submitted. SM recommends the petition be approved at a just value of $1,274,000. 2020-00751 Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00753 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00753 00732840004 COLERAINE INVESTMENTS, LLC 6060 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114✔ ✔ 5,749,185.00 5,749,185.00 5,749,185.00 5,749,185.00 5,749,185.00 5,749,185.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,749,185.00 5,749,185.00 5,749,185.00 (See Attached) The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/30/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00753: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.C). Mr. Shawn Coutts from Coleraine Investments LLC, agent for the Petitioner (PET) was contacted, by telephone, before the hearing on October 29, 2020; Mr. Coutts indicated he would not be attending the multiple hearings scheduled, by him, for the day. Mr. Coutts did not submit evidence for this hearing. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $5,749,185. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2020-00753 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00754 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00754 00732800002 COLERAINE INVESTMENTS, LLC NAPLES, FL 34114✔ ✔ 2,565,956.00 2,565,956.00 2,565,956.00 2,565,956.00 2,565,956.00 2,565,956.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,565,956.00 2,565,956.00 2,565,956.00 (See Attached) The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/30/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00754: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.C). Mr. Shawn Coutts from Coleraine Investments LLC, agent for the Petitioner (PET) was contacted, by telephone, before the hearing on October 29, 2020; Mr. Coutts indicated he would not be attending the multiple hearings scheduled, by him, for that day. Mr. Coutts did not submit evidence for this hearing. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $2,565,956. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2020-00754 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00755 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00755 26107001180 COLERAINE INVESTMENTS, LLC 7514 HOGAN CT NAPLES, FL 34113✔ ✔ 1,121,449.00 1,121,449.00 1,121,449.00 1,121,449.00 1,121,449.00 1,121,449.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,121,449.00 1,121,449.00 1,121,449.00 (See Attached) The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/30/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00755: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.C). Mr. Shawn Coutts from Coleraine Investments LLC, agent for the Petitioner (PET) was contacted, by telephone, before the hearing on October 29, 2020; Mr. Coutts indicated he would not be attending the multiple hearings scheduled, by him, for the day. Mr. Coutts did not submit evidence for this hearing. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $1,121,449. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2020-00755 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9$/8(3(7,7,21 &RXQW\ 7KHDFWLRQVEHORZZHUHWDNHQRQ\RXUSHWLWLRQ 7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRQO\QRWILQDO7KHVHDFWLRQVDUHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$% ,I\RXDUHQRWVDWLVILHGDIWHU\RXDUHQRWLILHGRIWKHILQDOGHFLVLRQRIWKH9$%\RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRILOHDODZVXLW LQFLUFXLWFRXUWWRIXUWKHUFRQWHVW\RXUDVVHVVPHQW(See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 3HWLWLRQ3DUFHO,' 3HWLWLRQHUQDPH 7KHSHWLWLRQHULVWD[SD\HURIUHFRUGWD[SD\HU¶VDJHQW RWKHUH[SODLQ 3URSHUW\ DGGUHVV Decision Summary 'HQLHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQ*UDQWHG\RXUSHWLWLRQLQSDUW 9DOXH /LQHVDQGPXVWEHFRPSOHWHG 9DOXHIURP 75,01RWLFH %HIRUH%RDUG$FWLRQ Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. $IWHU%RDUG $FWLRQ -XVWYDOXHUHTXLUHG $VVHVVHGRUFODVVLILHGXVHYDOXH if applicable ([HPSWYDOXH HQWHU³´LIQRQH 7D[DEOHYDOXH UHTXLUHG *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision )LOOLQILHOGVZLOOH[SDQGRUDGGSDJHVDVQHHGHG )LQGLQJVRI)DFW &RQFOXVLRQVRI/DZ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate )LQGLQJDQGFRQFOXVLRQVDERYHDUHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6LJQDWXUHVSHFLDOPDJLVWUDWH3ULQWQDPH'DWH 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUVSHFLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWH ,IWKLVLVDUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQWKHERDUGZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQRQ DW $GGUHVV ,IWKHOLQHDERYHLVEODQNWKHERDUGGRHVQRW\HWNQRZWKHGDWHWLPHDQGSODFHZKHQWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGHFLVLRQZLOOEH FRQVLGHUHG7RILQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFDOO RUYLVLWRXUZHEVLWHDW Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 6LJQDWXUHFKDLUYDOXHDGMXVWPHQWERDUG3ULQWQDPH'DWHRIGHFLVLRQ 6LJQDWXUH9$%FOHUNRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYH3ULQWQDPH'DWHPDLOHGWRSDUWLHV '59 5 5XOH' )$& (II 2020-00756 Page 1 of 2 Collier ✔ 2020-00756 46573004704 COLERAINE INVESTMENTS, LLC 201 SANTA CLARA DR NAPLES, FL 34104✔ ✔ 88,352.00 88,352.00 88,352.00 67,588.00 67,588.00 67,588.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67,588.00 67,588.00 67,588.00 (See Attached) The petition is denied. This decision is issued so that any right petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired [Rule 12D-9.021(8)(B), F.A.C.]. ✔ Lorraine Dube 10/30/2020 Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk 11/06/2020 239-252-8399 https://www.collierclerk.com/axiaw Lorraine Dube Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00756: Present at Collier County offices was Property Appraiser (PAO) represented by Mr. Clyde Quinby, Mr. Jack Redding, Ms. Liz Molina and Ms. Jenny Blaje. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, did not state good cause or request that their petition be heard without their attendance. (Rule 12D-9.021(8)(A), F.A.C). Mr. Shawn Coutts from Coleraine Investments LLC, agent for the Petitioner (PET) was contacted, by telephone, before the hearing on October 29, 2020; Mr. Coutts indicated he would not be attending the multiple hearings scheduled, by him, for the day. Mr. Coutts did not submit evidence for this hearing. SM read the petition number and parcel number. PAO confirmed the just value of $88,352. The value has not changed since the TRIM notice. 2020-00756 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00757 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00757: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not show and did not provide evidence for consideration. The hearing was opened and the SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $94,352. The TRIM value has not changed. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing. Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition or evidence reviewed in their absence. Petitioner has not provided a good cause statement for failure to appear or for a request for a rescheduled hearing. 2020-00757 Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent other, explain: Property address Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1.Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none 4. Taxable value,* required *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DR-485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 2020-00758 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2020-00758: Present at the hearing were Property Appraiser (PAO) representatives: Clyde Quinby, Jenny Blaje, Donald Wagner, Carla Allegro, Liz Molina. The Petitioner did not show and did not provide evidence for consideration. The hearing was opened and the SM read the petition number, PAO confirmed the property, and the just value of $88,352. The TRIM value has not changed. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing. Petitioner has not indicated a desire to have their petition or evidence reviewed in their absence. Petitioner has not provided a good cause statement for failure to appear or for a request for a rescheduled hearing. 2020-00758 Page 2 of 2