08/17/2022 VAB - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

range of market value to estimate the range of just value from $9,000,0000 to $10,000,000. During testimony, the petitioner concluded to a just value of $9,500,000. Rebuttal: None Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: Both the PA and the petitioner agreed that the cost approach was the only approach necessary for a credible valuation of the real estate. Both used MVS for their cost .information. The main variation between the two valuations in the cost approach was the PA used of good quality rating and a base cost at $170 SF versus the appraisal that used of an average to good quality rating and a base cost of $104 SF. In addition, the appraisal used a different classification of the building type. In the property appraiser's evidence, the recent building permit information was provided. Based on the building permit information, the cost for building 3, which was built in 2018-19, equated to approximately $3,653,225 or $119 per SF for the 30,771 SF. It is not known if the estimated cost shown on the permits included soft. cost. Assuming soft costs were not included and adding 25%, as indicated on page 49 of the appraisal submitted by the petitioner, this would indicate a total cost new for the building improvements of approximately $148 per square foot. When compared to the total improvement value as shown for building 3 on page 19 of the property appraiser's evidence, the total cost new including the open porches and extra features equates to $5,336,445 or $173 per square foot. As a result, it appears that the property appraiser's rating of the building as "Good Quality" has overstated the actual quality rating. The appraisal's rating of the building improvements between Average to Good quality, appears more supportable. The replacement cost new in the appraisal's cost approach of $14,202,000 equates to $134 per square foot. Property appraiser established the presumption of correctness by a preponderance of evidence that the just value assessment was arrived at by complying with section 193.011 FS and professionally accepted appraisal practices, however, the petitioner provided a preponderance of evidence that the property appraiser's estimate of just valuation does not represent just value. However, the record contains competent substantial evidence that cumulatively meets the requirements of section 193.011 FS and professionally accepted -77-