My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/11/2024
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2020's
>
2024
>
04/11/2024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2024 10:43:03 AM
Creation date
4/15/2024 10:38:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Value Adjustment Board
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
04/11/2024
Meeting Body
Value Adjustment Board
Subject
Value Adjustment Board Final Meeting (VAB) - 2023 Tax Year
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
$175 SF to $269 SF with an average of $212 SF. The PA did not establish a <br />preliminary value for the subject property based on the sales presented. <br />Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates section 193.011(8) which provides for the <br />PA to deduct a cost of sale (COS) in arriving at just value assessments and requires <br />the PA to present evidence showing PA's COS deductions as reported on Form <br />DR -493 because such deductions were applied in making just value assessments <br />and are professionally accepted appraisal practices. In addition, to not make a COS <br />deduction to the subject property, the PA would not adhere to section <br />194.301(2)(a)3., F.S., which precludes the PA, in appraising the petitioned <br />property, from using appraisal practices that are arbitrarily different from the <br />appraisal practices the PA applied to the comparable properties within the county. <br />Because a preliminary value was not established by the PA and a COS deduction <br />was not shown in the analysis of the comparable sales, the presumption of <br />correctness for the assessment was not established. The admitted evidence from the <br />PA did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the property <br />appraiser's just value methodology complied with the first and eighth criteria of <br />section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. <br />Based on the comparable sales presented by the PA and after giving consideration <br />to the comments on the property cards provided by the petitioner and reviewing the <br />Improvement Valuation (IV) on the property cards, the following was determined. <br />Comparable 1, sold for $175 SF, and did include a covered porch. The IV for the <br />covered porch on the property card was approximately $5 SF more than the IV for <br />the subject's 2 porches. Deducting $5 SF from $175 SF indicates an adjusted sale <br />price for Comparable 1 at $170 SF. <br />Comparable 2 is a newer home that was built to the current wind code and sold for <br />$176 SF. The construction costs new for the house was indicated on the IV at $126 <br />SF versus the subject's cost new of $114 SF. Adjusting the sale by $12 SF <br />provides an adjusted sale price of $164 SF. <br />Comparable 3 is a similar age and size property but included a pool. Comparable 3 <br />sold for $203 SF. Pairing Comparable 3 with Comparable 1 at $175 SF indicates <br />an adjustment of $28.00 SF for the pool. Deducting the $28 SF from the purchase <br />price indicates an adjusted purchase price of $175 SF per square foot. Based on the <br />IV, Comparable 3 is also a higher quality house and shows a construction cost new <br />2023-139 -72- Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.