04/29/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Findings of Fact for Petition 2024-157: _ List of:Property Appraiser Fxhibits/Wi-( esses*. *-Austin Boller:representing the :Property Appraisers_ Office (PAO) : * Summary; :PTO- Bulletin, 8 Criteria, Case: Law Sales Comparison Approach ... Summary of Assessments &'Supporting Data Maps, Property Cards, Sketches List of Petitioners EAibits/Witnesses: Petitioner — Linda Downey . . .... --- : * Verbal :Testimony : * Comparable Sales, Appraisals : .... Summary of Evidence presented by the Property Appraiser: The Subject Property is:a single-family residence located at 3735 _Flamingo Driv . Vero Beach; FL. The property is: located in the:Central Breach (Veromar) area and contains 1.08'acres. The property:was built.in:1956 and -contains 3;851 square feet: The property contains:'6.5 platted lots.. The propertyappraiser-indicated that there is a highest and: best use concern:for this property given :the age: of the home: and value :of the underlying land for:redevelopment. The PAO provided a summary of comparable:sales.:The three:cornparable: sales indicated a range from $-2;301,8.00 to $2,572,450 after- adjustments. -The PAO adjusted for Cost of Sale, Site Size, Bathroom. Miscellaneous; and Living -Area on a: lump sum: basis, which: is typical :real estate appraisal: practice for single family:residentiaf appraisals::: The PAO concluded at $2;480,798: The PAO then provided a land:value-analysis. Four comparables indicated an adjusted price per square foot of $50 to $67. The PAO conclusion is $52.73 per square' -f6 ot of land; based on $2,480;798:. The PAO indicated thatthe property was listed at $4;500,000.:; The PAO provided verbal testimony that:they are statutorilyrequired to value the improvements but:concur:that the ::... highest and best use is -to raze the -improvements. The-PAO indicated that where the improvements are valued on the ; the overall value s:in line with: market :data and:the appraisals provided based.on: :a land valuation. property card : Summary:of Evidence Presented by the Petitioner:: :. . The petitioner's:main concern was the fact.that their. assessment:is that the: improvements are: still being considered in the overall-valuation'.:In her opinion;the:valuation methodology that -includes -increasing improvements isnot.:' applicable :to the:property.. The: petitioner proyided:two appraisals that:indicate'd :that the. highest and best use is for redevelopment. and that -the improvements have no value. The petitioner indicated that the improvements Have increased by. over 706/6 over the oast couple of: years. ::.The petitioner indicated that:the house:lias many: issues, including electrical, plumbing;:ari older kitchen, aridwindows::: The petitioner also indicated that insurance is:'prohibitive on older homes such as the Subject. .. The petitioner provided a list of comparable sales and two appraisals. The comparable. sales data that was provided ..included: tear downs: and vacant lot sales. These indicate. -range from $40 to: $82 per square foot. The petitioner also: : provided two appraisals that indicated values above the:conclusion of the PAO. The concluded value by the PAO: is : within this range at $52.73 per_square foot.-:. All documents submitted by the PAO: and the petitioner were admissible and:admitted into:evidence:without objection.: Magi stratesAnalysis arid:Findings:of Facts::: From all evidence presented at the hearing it appears thatthe improvements have reached the end: of their useful life.:: : This is due to a:combination of the large size of the land, high value of the land, and the age/condition of the . improvements:: It appears.that the main issue Ghat the petitioner has is the continued :increasing value of the improvements on the property :appraiser system: even though the improvements are depreciating and likely have little to no value.at this time. This was:also the-. two:appraisals that were submitted --.by the petitioner. 2024-157::. Page 2 -of 3 72::-