04/29/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Findings;of Fact -for Petition 2024-132: List of Property Appraiser EAibits[W- finesses: * George Clarke representing the Property -Appraisers Office (PAO) . * Kevin Kinel representing the property Appraisers Office (PAO) Summary, PTO- Bulletin; 8 Criteria, Case Law. Sales CoinparisonApproach: . " = * Summary of Assessments & Supporting Data - Maps, Property Cards; _Sketches List of Petitioners Exhibits/Witnesses:- - * Petitioner — Ms: April Mili:e.vic * Verbal Testimony * Comparable Sales, Comparable.Assessments Summary;of Eviderice presented by the Property: Appraiser*: -.The Subject Vroperty is a single: family residence located at 1560::32nd Avenue, Vero;Beach; FL; The property is : located -in -Vero Park:and is 68 years oU The property is renovated. The PAO concluded ata living"area size of:1,145 square:feet. This:size was agreed upon'by the petitioner. There was a: discrepancy as the: PAO card had a smaller size, but the carport area has been converted. This -was supported by MLS information The property was last purchased by the petitioner -in May of 2022 for $348,000. The PAO provided a summary of comparablesales. The three comparable sales indicated a range from: $223,000 to $3.0:0;000, or $292 to'$363 per square foot:before adjustments: The PAO;adjusted-for:Cost of Sale, Site Size, Bathroom :. County; and Living Area on a lump sum basis,. which is typical real estate appraisal practice for single-family. residenii 'l appraisals. The adjusted sales: indicated:a range:from $289:050 to:$297,850, The "PAO then provided: aper square foot analysis of: $290 to $47.0 per square foot based on the: adjusted sale prfces:'and concluded at $283 -per square foot or $324,031 The PAO also presented verbal testimony to indicate that the petitioner's, valuation is still within the range of typical assessmentsaoaale ratios:for the: market. The:PAO also`. indicated that the assessment; last year was 84% '.of the sale:: price.... . Summary of Evidence -presented bythe Petitioner: - - The petitioners main concern was the fact that their assessment is currently 93% of their purchase price and comparables are :64°l° to 85%.:The petitioner presented 9 comparables: to support this. Thepetitioner.also indicated that Comparables 4 and 7 were most: comparable to the"Subject Property. These two properties sold for $260,000 and $325;000 before any adjustments: The petitioner is requesting a:value of $261,000or: 75% of the purchase price: in .2022..... All documents submitted :by the PAO and the ' etitioner were admissible and admitted into evidence without objection. Magistrates Analysis and Findings of Facts: The petitioner provided support foraheir valuation by primarily using comparable assessments There were no typical appraisal adjustments: by_the:petitionet..The petitioners concluded:value of $261,000 appears to be -at om of the -range based on a per square foot basis. In addition relying on using a percentage of sthe bott ale/assessment analysis is : not typical appraisal:practice:; :especially in this ;case where:there is:an :abundance of data: The PAO conclusion of.$324,031 ` S overstated based on the analysis provided at the -Bearing: Tlie PAO:used typical appraisal methodology doing lump sum adjustments (especially for living area adjustment) and then concluded above the range -of the adjusted sales by essentially adjusting for living area -twice. The:living.area was adjusted twice when.:: the PAO took the concluded range of the comparables ($289,050 to $297,850) and then used a price per: square foot: analysis fora) eir conclusion of $324,031..Th s is incorrect appraisal methodology;: and the PAO- conclusion should be within the original range of $289,050: to $297,850.: . Based on the evidence presented - .2024 , the best evidencepresented supports a value of $290,000: This is essential) the PAO .. 2024-132:: Page 2 of 3