Laserfiche WebLink
Rebuttal Testimony: <br />The PA presented property record cards (PRC); for 7 of -the 8 land sales presented <br />by the petitioner. These PRCs: were admitted in to evidence. The PA testified that <br />none of the sales were zoned for a MET and that only Comp 6 might permit a <br />WT because it was partially developed with an' older MHP. with 11 pads and was <br />a grandfathered use. The PA'noted :that the petitioner applied a 15% COS to each <br />land sale. <br />There was no rebuttal testimony provided from the petitioner. <br />Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: <br />The preliminaryvalue was established by the PA's income :approach analysis and <br />supported the just value. The.comparable sales presented; including the sale of the <br />subject, also supported the PA's just value asbeing reasonable: <br />Based on a review of the evidence. presented by the PA.at the hearing, a cost of <br />sale adjustment was not made to the preliminary value developed by the income <br />approaches. At he hearing, the Special Magistrate asked the PA for their opinion <br />of just value °after making.a 15% COS deduction. The.PA stated i just value of <br />$9,435,000 for the subject property: <br />Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates section 193.011:(8) which provides for the <br />PA to deduct a cost of sale in arriving at just value assessments land requires the <br />PA to present evidence showing PA's COS deductions as reported on Form DR - <br />493 <br />R493 because such deductions were applied in <br />.making just value. assessments and <br />are professionally -accepted appraisal practices: In addition, to not make a COS <br />deduction to the. subject property; the PA would not adhere10 section <br />194.301(2)(x)3., F.S., which precludes the PA,:in appraising the petitioned <br />property, from using appraisal practices that ate arbitrarily different from the <br />appraisal practices the PA applied to the comparable properties within the -county. <br />The presumption. of correctness for the assessment was established because the <br />admitted evidence from the PA did prove by the :preponderance of the evidence <br />- that the property appraiser's just value methodology complied with the first and <br />eighth criteria of section 193.011, F.S and,professionally accepted appraisal . <br />practices after the 15% COS was deducted; as discussed at the hearing <br />The petitioner's evidence did not overcome the presumption of correctness. <br />4 <br />2023-069-57 _ Page 5 of 6 <br />