Laserfiche WebLink
The comparables indicated a range from $152 9F to $299 SF or $332 SIF with the <br />additional comparable sale. (The average sale price of the 4 comparables, after <br />adjusting comps 2 and 3 for land value, was $245 SF.) The preliminary value <br />estimate for the subject property was $438,957 or $202 SF. This is 17.5% less than <br />the average of the four comparable sales at $245 SF. These comparable sales <br />supported the PAs just value of $438,957 or $202 SF. <br />Summary of evidence: presented by the petitioner: <br />The petitioner provided several sales along with their assessed values. The analysis <br />showed the difference between the purchase price and the assessed value. In most <br />cam, the assessed value was less than the purchase price. However, the data did <br />riot support an estimate cif just value for the subject property. <br />The petitioner also offered the declaration page from Citizens Insurance showing a <br />replacement cost of $290,000 for the house versus the depreciated value of <br />$249,191 used by the PA. A 4 -Point inspection report was submitted that showed <br />that the roof was towards the end of its life. However, there were no cost estimates <br />submitted to replace the roof or any other deferred maintenance items discussed at <br />the hearing. <br />Rebuttal Testimony: <br />During rebuttal testimony, the PA testified that there were deductions made for the <br />deferred maintenance. The 110 Street comp submitted by the petitioner was <br />considered a good comparable, sold for $332 SIF of A/C area, and supports the <br />assessed value of the subject. (The property card and an aerial was admitted in to <br />evidence by agreement of both parties.) <br />The petitioner stated that the 110 Street sale was assessed much lower than the <br />purchase price. Ibe petitioner testiftd, than her taxes keep going up each year as a <br />result of the sales in the neighborhood. <br />Special magistrate's analysis and finding -of facts: <br />The comparable sales presented by the PA (and the petitioner) were based on the <br />recorded sale price. Therefore, the special magistrate must determine whether an <br />811 Criteria adjustment should be made to the presented sales price of the <br />comparables per section 194.301 and 193.011, F.S., and if not, make a percentage <br />adjustment for the 81 Criteria that is equal to the percentage adjustment lawfully <br />-45- <br />