|
Findings of Fact for Petition 2024-093:
<br />The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 14, 2024, for the correctness of the
<br />2024 Just/Market Value of 211 Beachside Dr (31-39-23-00011-0000-00021.0) in Vero Beach. At the hearing were the
<br />Special Magistrate, Clerk (Terri); representatives from Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO), Austin
<br />Boller, Alisa Barkett, and Kevin Kinel; and James Calkins, the petitioner (PET) with Janice Cosden & Alexandra
<br />Mishler from Cosden-Mishler Appraisers. Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject
<br />value
<br />The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, information/evidence request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.020
<br />document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, emails from PET, copies of
<br />the PET appraisal, subject property card, subject MLS from the 2023 sale, land value analysis, aerial photos of subject
<br />and comparables, comparable grid, map of subject/comparables, property cards/ aerial photos of the comparables and
<br />case law documents. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was considered.
<br />The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal on a GP Residential form, assessment comparison pages, property cards
<br />for subject/comparables and time trend submitted as rebuttal/additional data.
<br />All documents were admissible, and all evidence was admitted into evidence without objection.
<br />Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the PAO provided a grid with four sales (two shared with the PET). The
<br />PAO applied adjustments to their grid for size, bathrooms, effective age, WFF (waterfront footage), location, and cos.
<br />No adjustments were applied for the subject's larger garage size than the comparables. The four sales provide an
<br />average adjusted value of $11,607,050.
<br />The PAO provided a vacant land analysis that showed the increasing land values from 2021 through 2023. The first
<br />page of the land analysis showed a breakdown of the price per sf and WFF. The second page of the land sales showed
<br />an increase in sale prices for parcels with a sale and a subsequent sale with a minimum increase of 4% monthly from
<br />04/2021 to 05/2022. The other sales had 6% monthly from 06/2021 to 01/2023; the third was a 40% increase in 3
<br />months (flip sale). This data does provide sufficient support for the subject land value portion at $3,093,179 ($25,354
<br />WFF/between $81-82 per sf). '
<br />The PAO commented on the vacant land sale in April 2021 next tothe subject. The aerial imagery shows the site was
<br />vacant/raw land on the effective date (photo flight date was Jan 2, ;2024, per PAO). This parcel has less buildable land,
<br />less front footage, and a wider WFF view. The land sale value plus an increase on the low end still supports the land
<br />assessment portion.
<br />The PET provided three copies of appraisals on the subject property. Their original submission to the PAO was not
<br />considered as it had four 2024 sales and one 2023 sale with an effective date of September 2024, which is after the
<br />effective date of value for this hearing (Jan 1, 2024 value date). That appraisal had a value of $10,065,000. Comparable
<br />5 was actually a 2023 sale per the other appraisals and the PAO grid as this was a shared sale from November 2023.
<br />A second appraisal was presented, with six sales (4 from 2023 and 2 from 2019) and a value of $10,280,000 (signature
<br />date 10/22/2024, effective 12/31/2023).
<br />The third appraisal is the one reviewed for this hearing. It had the same six sales as the second appraisal plus an
<br />additional seventh sale (included as comp 5), which changed the value to $9,980,000 (signature date 10/30/2024).
<br />The PET presented one -line grids of the assessed values of the other beachfront properties in the subject subdivision.
<br />This data is irrelevant as the PAO does not compare assessments due to differences in sale dates, homestead
<br />exemptions, portability, etc. The PAO commented on the changes to the market values that fluctuate with market area
<br />values, with the owners having protections/caps in the Assessed/SOH value lines.
<br />The owner stated they purchased the dwelling with the furniture; however, without a tangible property appraisal and a
<br />separate real estate appraisal from the time of sale, the sale price is considered for the real estate. When the furnishings
<br />are left, it's for seller convenience (time, sell, donate, move items; etc.) to entice a buyer, Airbnb/short-term rental, etc.
<br />In the hearing folder was page 1 of the subject purchase contract. The contract indicated the items to be included in the
<br />sale per MLS listing and furniture as seen on 12/14/2022. The MLS was provided in the PAO evidence, which did not
<br />provide details or photos of the personal items. The contract did indicate that the vehicles in the garage, artwork,
<br />Ferrari dinnerware, wine, glasses, statues, glass turtle in the billiard room, and other personal items were not included
<br />in the sale. Hence, the remaining items left did not have value to the seller.
<br />The PAO and PET utilize two sales in common. 910 Reef Rd was adjusted for an inferior location by the PAO. The
<br />PET indicated the site size offset the location adjustment, which is not supported as the site size is similar and the WFF
<br />2024-093
<br />-26-
<br />Page 2 of 4
<br />
|