|
Findings of Fact for Petition -2024-063:
<br />. Tconducted: a hearing that occurred on 14, 20.24 for the:' orrectness: of the
<br />The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM).
<br />2024 Just/Market Value -of 2305 86 Ave SW (33-38-35-00001-0140-00001:0) in Vero Beach: Afthe hearing were the
<br />Special Magistrate, clerk (Terri); representatives from Indian River County: Property Appraisers. Office (PAO) were::
<br />Robert Taylor and Matt Mosel; and the petitioner (PET) Edward Kuvlesky/Best Choice Properties 2 LLC. Both parties
<br />presented;evidence in support -of their opinions: f6f the subject value
<br />The TAO evidence consisted of a cover page; :inforiii-aiion/evidence request. letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.020
<br />document-,: methodology and: consideration page,: 193.01 .1 -Factors to consider document, email from -PET, subject
<br />property;card, aerial/intenoraubject photos, comparable grid, map :of subject and comparables, property cards aiid
<br />aerial -photos ofthe comparables_. Al 5% cos .(cost of sale) adjustment was considered:
<br />The PET evidence consisted -of an email with VAB, land survey, floorplan pages, construction cost -pages (typed
<br />budgets, invoices, quotes, receipts etc)::: :..
<br />All documents:were admissible;:and all evidence was.admitted into evidence with6dt objection.:
<br />Upon examination:of the evidence submitted, the subject is a 17.2 acre parcel: with a 4,800: sf structure. Atthe:heari.ng
<br />,
<br />the PAO and PET both indicated- the structure: does not meet code=to be -a habitable dwelling :and is a partially
<br />overimproved barn (upgraded kitchen, A/C areas, not o .typical: horse/animal farm barn. The and
<br />has 1,600 sf. :
<br />garage area and 4,800 sf enclosed A/C area. There -are interior finishes. of electric, plumbing, drywall; interior walls,
<br />kitchen, bathrooms:to facilitate an office/business/working:area.
<br />The VAB presented a comparable grid with three sales •including the subject 2023 transaction PAO sale l was the
<br />subject sale::Sale 2 is .a :12.5 acre parcel with:a 2660 `barn/stable`area and 1.440 sf living area :(A/C, kitchen, bathrooms
<br />etc). Sale 3 has 18:72 acres with a small -open pole'barn (420: sf). The PAO addressed the: differences in land value from
<br />sales 2: & 3 northeast of I-95 location toahe subjects south location west of I=95: The wind load'constructiori codes
<br />were discussed: which the:'subject building as•built cannot be habitable for living purposes and can function as a
<br />business/farm structure.::
<br />-The PET provided -construction' costs :which appear to adequately cover the structure, plumbing (rough in -not -f nished
<br />bathrooms), electrical costs, A/C and partial cost of the septic system (invoice had a discounted total of $4,500 with
<br />only :$2,250.on the full budget sheet. These :were older :costs with :invoice dates back in 2021: The PAO coinmerited on
<br />the increase in construction costs. The cement -invoice did not include all costs associated With Jeff Wilson Masonry
<br />Services:portion :of the work. The invoice indicated additional costs: the owner & that time: was responsible :for: that
<br />were not noted in the budget sheet: permit; dumpster for site, dumpster.for concrete. Washout, power (electric cost on
<br />budget sheet do: not showmain feed costs): with the water costs appearing:on the budget from Robert Scarborough
<br />- - - Wells. The -total budget of.$163,111 is considered to be low for costs as of the Jan 1, 2024 effective date. Plus these -
<br />additional items which were not in the:budget; :cost of sand for septic (invoice indicated not included: in price), :material
<br />& labor for kitchen, bathrooms; interior walls: etc that did not. appear to;be included iri the budget. The kitchen,
<br />bathrooms, walls etchave value. for: functionality allowing for -multiple different usages.of the' structure :
<br />- The PAO and PET somewhat agree on the land values basedon the location of the parcel with similar access dirt
<br />roads. The: area where they disagree is :with the :additional structure .value.
<br />PAO sale had a:420 sf open pole. barn which has minimal value and is basically a large parcel with a tree farm.
<br />The PAO did provide a building value of $2:64,155 for -sale 2 having a small livmg.area of 1,-140 sf, 380 sf carport -and
<br />non -A/C barn area of 2,660 sf which is an older structure -built in 2011:
<br />The SM reviewed the data presented by both parties.. The SM concurs on the low side: with the PAO land value portion
<br />ofahe assessment at $219,300. The'structure value prior to the hearing of $423,318 appears high as the dwelling:.::
<br />cannot be lived in as'a typical -home due to not meeting eode'for a full-time living dwelling. The -building does'have
<br />value being composed of a::1'5600 sf garage/storage: area and:4,800 sf:ofA/C enclosed semi=finished area. Thee::
<br />construction costs provided a staring point for valuation for the structure (shell), partial eleetrieLplumbmg'and A/C.
<br />The cost was from 2021 per invoice dates.and would require modification to costs ion the effective date..The SM also
<br />eonsideredthe finishings for the subject (kitchen; bathrooms; interior walls etc) and other construction costs not. .
<br />included: in the budget when :comparmg:to PAO. sale 2 structure. .:
<br />PAO sale 2 building breakdown is noted to be 27% -living -A/C area, 9% carport and. 64% barn/stable. The: subject
<br />structure has 25% forahe:garage: area and.75%o for the A/C -enclosed area.:These figures along with building budget:
<br />Costs were: considered in the building valuation. Overall -for all areas combined -the subject is 33%larger in size and
<br />::sale 2 A/C. area is:less than 25% of the aubject A/C area.:
<br />The subject incomplete -building budget with -a 20-25% cost increase, additional costs for construction items not
<br />.2024-063 1D Page 2 of
<br />
|