|
Petition 2024-162
<br />Subject
<br />Comp 1
<br />Comp 3
<br />Comp 4
<br />Comps
<br />Petitioner's Sales
<br />1000 Sunrise
<br />985 Beachcombe Ln
<br />121 Mariner Beach
<br />100 Seaway Ct
<br />910 Reef Rd
<br />Terr
<br />Lane
<br />Sale Price
<br />$ 4,137,551
<br />$ 2,985,000
<br />$ 4,508,000
<br />$ 11,000,000
<br />$ 5,500,000
<br />SF A/C
<br />4409
<br />2,322
<br />4,913
<br />11,581
<br />7,759
<br />$'s SF A/C
<br />Size adj $ 100_
<br />$ 938
<br />$1,286
<br />$ 9S8
<br />$ 950
<br />$ 709
<br />$ 208,700
<br />$ (50,400)
<br />$ (717,200)
<br />$ (335,000)
<br />Land $ 5,0006
<br />$100
<br />116 $ (80,000)
<br />80 $ 100,000
<br />326 $ (1,130,000)
<br />124 $ (120,000)
<br />Condition $
<br />$ -
<br />$ -
<br />$
<br />$
<br />Baths $ 50000=
<br />4
<br />2 $ 100,000
<br />4 $
<br />8 $ (200,000)
<br />8 $ (200,000)
<br />Garages
<br />Pool
<br />_
<br />$
<br />Tota I Adjustments
<br />228,700
<br />$ 49,600
<br />$ (2,047,200)
<br />$ (655,000)
<br />Preliminary Value
<br />$4,557,600
<br />$ 8,952,800
<br />$ 4,845,000
<br />Less COS
<br />15%
<br />4
<br />L$3,213,700
<br />482,055)
<br />$ (683,640)
<br />$ (1,342,920)
<br />$ .(726,750)
<br />Just Value
<br />$ 4,583,434
<br />2
<br />731,645
<br />$ 3,873,960
<br />$ 7,609,880
<br />$ 4,118,250
<br />Average SF
<br />$ 788
<br />1,176
<br />$ 789
<br />$ 657
<br />$ 531
<br />Rebuttal Testimony:
<br />The PA testified that the difference in the effective year built between the PRC and
<br />the grid was "their opinion for this hearing, based on the renovations to the subject
<br />and will be corrected on the PRC going forward". The PA testified that the permit
<br />value was not a reliable indicator of either the cost or the contributory value of the
<br />renovations. The PA testified that the PRC's in the petitioner's evidence show
<br />2025 values and were work in progress. The petitioner testified that the value
<br />shown in their grid (page 2 of 2) were based on what the PA submitted to the
<br />DOR. The PA testified that, in their opinion, the comparables used by the
<br />petitioner were not as comparable as the sales they presented. Sales 1 and 2 have
<br />inferior interior finish (based on MLS photos) and are too small (living area), Sale
<br />4 was vastly superior to the subject and the size adjustment of $100 SF was
<br />understated, and Sale 5 has a vastly superior interior finish. The PA testified that
<br />the petitioner did not use 975 Sunrise Terrace (PA's Sale 1) which was the house
<br />next door to the subject. The PA later testified that, per the MLS, Sale 1 could be a
<br />teardown and that it was significantly renovated after the purchase and resold in
<br />2024 for substantially more.
<br />The petitioner testified that Sales 4 and 5, which were characterized as being vastly
<br />superior to the subject, sold for $949 SF and $708 SF. The subject is assessed at
<br />$938 SF. Considering no adjustments, other than the COS, those two comparables
<br />support a reduction. The petitioner testified that they should have included the
<br />PA's Sale 1. This comparable sold for $937 SF and after just a COS adjustment
<br />would support a reduction. The petitioner testified that the effective age adjustment
<br />to Sale 1, of $1,260,000, was not supportable based on the evidence presented and
<br />2024-162
<br />Page 5
<br />-79-
<br />Page 6 of 8
<br />
|