08/17/2022 VAB - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Conclusions of Law for Petition 2021-00208: Conclusions of Law The Property Appraiser's Office presented reasonable evidence leading to a credible indication of value. Key elements of this consideration are as follows: 1. Cost Approach data is developed, with both the Sales Comparison Approach and the income Approach considered not being applicable nor capable of reasonable development. 2. The PAO utilizes shorter lives, based upon its own market research, as compared to DOR provided lives and/or ASA developed lives. 3. The PAO astutely indicates that the Cost Approach does not consider either functional or economic obsolescence, nor did it apply additional depreciation factors in this regard. 4. Depreciation factors are based upon the Marshall Valuation Service age/life table, considered by the appraisal industry as being a reasonable indication of "installed" remaining value. 5. Neither functional obsolescence nor economic obsolescence factors, prior to addressing Covid-19 issues, were developed. 6. The PAO did not address any possible economic obsolescence effect of the Covid-19 pandemic, other than offering information concerning how the State of Florida dealt with such issues. 7. Overall, the value information developed by the PAO is considered reasonably persuasive The Petitioner presented evidence relating to the values without consideration of the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as considering the possible level of economic obsolescence resulting from the pandemic. Key elements of this consideration are as follows: 1. The Petitioner states that the PAO analysis does not include all forms of depreciation. However, the PAO does state in its evidence that neither functional obsolescence or economic obsolescence has been applied in its analysis. 2. The Petitioner extensively relates valuation information from a number of respected sources (as previously noted). Such information is considered generally reasonable "guidance" within the profession. 3. The Petitioner applies its essentially straight-line age/life factors, as compared to the age/life curve utilized by the PAO, the latter PAO factors being considered to more appropriately reflect physical deterioration of installed tangible property. 4. The Petitioner relies heavily upon information provided by PTRS, an independent consulting firm, for its development of its age/life factors, as well as Remaining Obsolescence Factors. However, there is not clearly provided or sufficient asset detail information in this regard. 5. Relating to the possible effect of Covid-19 causing additional economic obsolescence, the Petitioner's information is not acceptably developed. As has been noted the PAO requested from Buckhead Beef (not its parent Sysco) detailed financial and production information in this regard. Such requested data was not provided. Further, the PAO requested access to the facility, but such access was denied. Lastly, and of significant 2021-00208 Pafiof 7