04/29/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

garage. Rebuttal Testimony: :. -Mr. Boller:(Property:Appraiser) refers to: 453 Jacqueline Way and addressed the:valuation: PA says:the data supports the assessed value of the subject: He has had previous communication with the owners. He notes the delays in the closing of the. sale that affected the: assessed value when they qualified for. Homestead: The evidence supplied by the: petitioner includes data from outside the'neighborhood that is inferior io the -subject and should not be used: He refers - to a 20-year-old'home and construction quality.: Some of:Petitioners comps are:7;miles:away in a: different (rural) market. He then discusses the Petitioner's comments for the PA not applying an adjustment for 2 -car versus 3 -car garages. PA states this would increase the: indicated:values of two: of the: Comps and further support the AV :. Mr. Bogdanowich objects to the PA statements on sales outside the neighborhood. Further discussion is provided on assessed:values and:Petitioner states their tax amount is one:of the highest in:the:neigliborhood. ... Special Magistrate's analysis and Finding .of Facts: ; The PAO presented evidence to support -the market value. The Property Appraiser has included a sales comparison approach- and applied adjustments toahe:sales compared to: the subject: After both parties were given the opporiunity:to be Beard, the special magistrate finds that property appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S.; 'and professionally accepted appraisal practices.:Property Appraise r. established a presumption:of correctness for the:assessment: The Petitioner emphasized the assessed values of the subject and comps.. Magistrate notes the lakefront lots have a an value of $59,500.and dry loisin the neighborhood: are valued at $55,25:0. The:value spread:appears:low, but:::: insufficient data to determine. PA used an adjustment factor. of $10,000. Magistrate also re views: the_ assessed value of the improvements for the subject and:the comparables. The AV psf.of. living area:for the subject equates to $268, which:: is within the range of five comps that indicate: $241 to $290 psf and an average of $260 ps£ Other features and depreciation. are factors.that affect the AM The Petitioner has not provided a comparative analysis (with adjustment) of comps but provided the property cards for. ::. several parcels, most of which:were used by the PA in their: analysis.:A review :of the data would not: support a:. reduction in the assessed value: -- The Petitioner failed: to overcome the:presumption of correctness established: at the hearing by the property: appraiser:::: : Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance that property appraiser's valuation does -not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from:the'appraisal practices generally applied:byahe property appraiser. to comparable property in _Indian River County. Conclusions of Law. for Petition 2024-083: Property: appraiser:established a presumption of correctness: for the assessment: at the hearing [Section 194.301 F,S.; ::::: Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.0:]. .... Petitioners failed to -overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing: by`property appraiser. The :petition is: denied:and the assessment st4 ands [Section 19301, F.S.-:Mile 12D-9:027, F:A:C.]. 2024-083 _ .... Page 3 _of 3