|
masssal, and the cost tW040-
<br />The PA stated that 1,eycmplied with the 8 Criteria factors, used
<br />rd car& ond
<br />The PA's evidence included the value review leucts,
<br />evidew reque economic line
<br />guide, 2019
<br />returns, 'letter of Iq�ortsaudphoto"U-fi-(XM site
<br />Present W es,
<br />DOR equipment index, factors, 20Iq IIGWO�.
<br />of Measure, - iRoome factor Tmads'261, old
<br />visits of 4 locations, DOR7s leased equipment Standard
<br />petitions.
<br />marketwid. income approaches MAZ
<br />The PA discussed how the cost approach was applied and bow the
<br />but not IlUlizeA They stated that the sales comparison is bqyon� the scope of mass oppralfWl,.
<br />considered
<br />They developed a gross income multiplier which was considered but not ufi�i. This is leased equipment.
<br />and 1hereftc, DOR guidelines and-aj&M guides were applied.
<br />There is other equipment located within the stores used in the business 0Pejixd0u Of the location. For both
<br />11 1 'did find -anY S*_0tRGW
<br />computers and TV, the PA used a 4-yW. lift. During; the site visits, the �A.� not
<br />level of Wear and tear- when the assets ate
<br />elre . turned. UporxTetuxll, the*a,,=' furbished and put backon
<br />W ;T0
<br />to theI lboi for future leasing. VWdocs not depredate the assets out on rent,- only Wbon
<br />they are idle.
<br />at the market f 4 -year
<br />or any advanced depreciation and applied a 6.year life for fimuire. 4
<br />The PA looked be tied to the
<br />for TV and stereos, and 4 -year for computer and EDP equipment 'Ile fttcdbl" approach can than the
<br />assets and therefore, the PA developed multiplier, wbich resulted in avatui.2 to 4 times MOM
<br />assessment. Consequently, it was not used in any of their calculationsand was just to test for
<br />reasonableness.
<br />Therefore, the PA believes 69 theyhaveestablished the presumption .of correctness, considered all 8
<br />factors of F.S. 193.011, adhered to Floridala* and followed PlAssiotg4y.accepted appraisal -practices.
<br />The PA requested the assessed values be,uplield-
<br />petitioner/Agent
<br />The Agent stated that their question relates to items that are on lease/putchW agreement- 14e has no issue
<br />with the furniture and fixtures within the stores (pog, signs, office Turnit*e -& "equipment). Therefore, R
<br />&W -party Appraiser was hired to derive a value for the leased assets, H4;ekamined all of the, 8 Criteria
<br />factors. He stated that JIMIrents home furnishing; appliances, coMPUM outdoor equipment on a 12,
<br />18 or 24 -month period. Their agreements are rent -to -own, with payment overtime. The inventoried assets
<br />are listed on the balance sbeeL
<br />using th&
<br />The Appraiser stated that was . hired to produce a model, us - i cost approach, historical cost
<br />(subtracting an upcbaTge for the distribution center). BLS trending, and pe*ejxt of remaining value (PW.
<br />-The Valuation Model is not an appraisal but is designed for the clientlo arrive at an estimate of Pak
<br />Market Value or Fair Market Value Installed by applying the Pmvent Re� Z Value (PkV) tables for
<br />Furniture, Appliances, Outdoor Equipment, Electronics and computers. to .thy cost new of the property".
<br />Iftdiscussed the diagram with Step A, B and C showing the application. of the model to the appraisal.
<br />This p ercentage, (PRV) was applied to the line items in order to develop ft final val.ue. � discused the
<br />breakdown of the met types, consideration of obsolescence in the.mar* compared cost and sales data,
<br />used trend lines, made site visits to 4 stores on the, west coast of Florifla, developed data, points, and
<br />adjusted for freight and price negotiations in order to be in complian�e with Uniform Standards of
<br />Professional Appraisal practice (USPAP). Then, the model was applied W 1hespreadsheet by store location
<br />and asset descriptiori.
<br />'For reasons set forth below, the Special Magistrate disagrees with that assertion by. the PA. However, the Agent did
<br />not challenge the PXs consideration of (and lure to utffi=) the salescompar" (market) approach. Both parties
<br />agreed that th6 cost approach is the appropriate valuation methodology for the id*6t mets.
<br />-58-
<br />
|