Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2024Ryan L. Butler Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk to the Board and Value Adjustment Board fi8012.7th Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION — Commissioner Joseph H. Earman 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chairman Joseph E. Flescher 4. INTRODUCTIONS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. VAB Organizational Meeting of August 16, 2023...uuuu......L.NNHNNNNNNN..NNH.1=6 . 6. 2023 VAB Recap.............................................................................................................7 Value Adjustment Board Final Meeting Agenda - 2023 Tax Year Page 1 April 11, 2024 7. APPROVE AND ADOPT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES' RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S DECISION AND AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FORM DR485V, PURSUANT TO SECTION 194.032, F.S. A. 2023 Special Magistrates' Recommendations.....................................................8-85 8. AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE FOLLOWING FORMS PURSUANT TO F.S. 193.122 A. Tax Impact Notice DR -529 for Tax Year 2023 ...................................................... 86 B. Certification Form DR -488 Real Property.......................................................87-88 C. Certification Form DR -488 Tangible Personal Property................................89-90 9. AUTHORIZE THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CLERK TO SOLICIT FOR SPECIAL MAGISTRATES IN THE CAPACITY OF ATTORNEY, TANGIBLE, AND APPRAISER FOR THE 2024 VAB HEARINGS. 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR NAPIER & ROLLIN, PLLC LAW FIRM ATTORNEYS MICHELLE NAPIER AND NICHOLAS BYKOWSKY TO MAKE DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT Value Adjustment Board Final Meeting Agenda - 2023 Tax Year Page 2 April 11, 2024 2017 2018 2019 = 2020 2021- , : 2022 2023 TOTAL PETITIONS 119 :134 :166w. 141 84:: - 114: 163 PETITION F LED IN ERROR 1 0 l .0. 0 3 TOTAL GOOD CAUSE PETITIONS 13 5 26 10 3 3 14 GOOD CAUSE DENIED 0 4-. 3 :: 1:::: 3 :. = 3 8 TOTAL WITHDRAWN 90 114 • • :134 12176 93 126 -: WITHDRAWN - AGREED WITH.PAO 17: 30 ::: : 10 21 :1: r.,q :: 17 WITHDRAWN—ADMINISTRATIVE 0 0 3 2-. f 2 ... 1 3 WITHDRAWN -:REACHED A SETTLEMENT BEFORE HEARING 48 51 36: 33 39'.: . = 45 58 WITHDRAWN - DROPPED THEIR ARGUMENT 12 . 15 65 35 24 .... 27 : w. 25:' WITHDRAWN:- BY AGENT. 1: .:1. 7 0: 7 6 0 .:WITHDRAWN'- BY PETITIONER ; 11 7 11 7 2.: 2 20 WITHDRAWN — RESOLVED BY PAO 1 10 2 -::.3 1: 3 3 TOTAL HEARINGS SCHEDULED 29: 15 : 29 29 ri 19'.26 GRANTED: 12 4 a 1:.*: 12::. 2 :::.: 6 5 GRANTED IN PART '0 0 .2 F 00:- 2 2 DENIED 1T ` 11 26 " 11 2: 6 10 DENIED - NO SHOW AT HEARING 4: 5 0 S A. 4 9 Ryan L. Butler Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk to the Board and Value Adjustment Board 1801 27t' Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Telephone: (772) 226-1432 Fax: (772) 978-1857 E-mail: Axia6klerk.indian-river.or� Web address: http://indianriverclerk.com VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (VAB) ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING MINUTES The Value Adjustment Board (VAB) of Indian River County, Florida, met on Wednesday, August 16, 2023, at 11:30 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 1801 27t' Street, Building A, Room A2-511, Vero Beach, Florida. Present were Commissioners Joseph E. Flescher and Joseph H. Earman; School Board Member Peggy Jones; and Rick Wykoff, Homesteaded Citizen Member. Also present were VAB Attorney Miche apier; Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Ryan Butler; and VAB Clerk Terri Collins -Lister. Present from the Property Appraiser's Office were Billy Anton, Rob Fox, and Mickey Umphrey. 1. TO O the meeting to order. 2. INVOCATION —Cha n Joseph H. Earman Chairman Joseph H. Ew' an delivered the Invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. ELECT CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.015 The Chairman Shall Be A Board Of County Commission Member 194.015 of the Florida Statutes "There is hereby created a value adjustment board for each county, which shall consist of two members of the governing body of the county as elected from the membership of the board of said governing body, one of whom shall be elected chairperson" 2023 VAB Organizational Meeting Minutes Page 1 August 16, 2023 -2- 5. Chairman Earman opened the floor for nominations for Chairman. MOTION WAS MADE by Chairman Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, to elect Commissioner Flescher as Chairman of the Value Adjustment Board for the Tax Year 2023. There were no other nominations for Chairman. The Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) elected Commissioner Flescher as Chairman of the Value Adjustment Board for the Tax Year 2023. Chairman Flescher opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chairman. MOTION WAS MADE by Commission Earman, SECONDED by Chairman Flescher, to re-elect Citizen Member Wykoff a Chairman. There were no other nominations for Vice Chairman. The Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Memb�efturren absent) re-elected Citizen Member Wykoff as Vice Chairman of the Value Adjustment Board for the Tax Year 2023. INTRODUCTIONS & CONTA A INFORMATION A. Introduction of Board Membe ler Introductions were made by all p B, Board Members 11111111111111IMated o d Clerk's contact information...................1 matin only :; vE vAL JUS 0 BOARD MINUTES A:' VAB Meets 'nutes of May 17, 2023............................................................2-4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved the VAB Final Meeting Minutes from May 17, 2023, as written. 7. APPROVE RESOLUTION SETTING THE FILING FEE TO BE NO MORE THAN $15 PER PARCEL FOR THE 2023 PETITION FILING PERIOD, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.013. A. VAB Resolution 2023-1.................................................................................................5-6 2023 VAB Organizational Meeting Minutes Page 2 August 16, 2023 -3- i y ON MOTION by Commissioner Earman, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Wykoff, the 1: Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved the Value Adjustment Board Resolution 2023-1, setting the filing fee for the 2023 petition filing period, as presented, and pursuant to FS. 194.013. 8. APPOINT ONE ATTORNEY APPLICANT TO SERVE AS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR EXEMPTION/CLASSIFICATION/TAX DEFERRAL HEARINGS AND ONE ATTORNEY APPLICANT AS AN ALTERNATE, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.035 A. Claudette Pelletier, Esq......................................................................................7-15 B. James Haynes Davis.................................................................................................16-37 ON MOTION by Commissioner Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved the appointment of Attorney Claudette Pelletier as the primary Attorney Special Magistrate, and James Haynes Davis as the Alternate, for exemption, classification, assessment difference transfers, and tax deferral hearings for the VAB 2023 tax year. 9. SET THE RATE OF PAY FOR ATTORNEY SPECIAL MAGISTRATES Rate of pay for Attorney Special Magistrates is $125.00 per hour. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Wykoff, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved a rate of pay not to exceed $125.00 per hour, to be paid to the Attorney Special Magistrates for the VAB 2023 tax year. 10. DISCUSSION AND vAPPOINTMENT OF APPRAISER APPLICANTS TO SERVE AS SPECIAL MAGISTRATES FOR REAL PROPERTY VALUATION, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.035. A. Stephen Boyle............................................................................................................38-46 B. Terrie Peltier.............................................................................................................47-56 C. Robert Busler............................................................................................................57-64 D. Douglas B. Lawson...................................................................................................65-71 E. Philicia Lloyd............................................................................................................72-84 F. Scott Sehr...................................................................................................................85-93 VAB Clerk Terri Collins -Lister gave an overview of the Special Magistrate candidates for the 2023 Tax Year. A discussion followed regarding each of the magistrate 2023 VAB Organizational Meeting Minutes August 16, 2023 -4- Page 3 applicant's qualifications, predictions on the number of petition filings for 2023 tax year, and utilizing all of the magistrate applicants for the hearings. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Wykoff, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) appointed Stephen Boyle, Terrie Peltier, Robert Busler, Douglas B. Lawson, Philicia Lloyd, and Scott Sehr as the Appraiser Special Magistrates for the VAB 2023 tax year. 11. SET THE RATE OF PAY FOR APPRAISER SPECIAL MAGISTRATES Rate of pay for Appraiser Special Magistrates is $125.00 per hour. ON MOTION by Commissioner Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved a rate of pay not to exceed $125.00 per hour for all Appraiser Special Magistrates for the VAB 2023 tax year. 12. APPOINT ONE APPRAISER APPLICAN VE AS SPEC -MAGISTRATE FOR TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY HEARING AND ONE APPRAISER APPLICANT AS AN ALTERNATE, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.35. A. Pamela i .... ....................................................................................... 94-108 B. Alex Rude ............:........................................................................................ 109-127 ON MOTION b mmissioner Earman, SECONDED by Chairman Flescher, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved the appointment of Pamela Andrea as the Special Magistrate for Tangible Personal Property hearings, and Alex Ruden as the alternate for the VAB 2023 tax year. 13. APPROVE THE REVISED LANGUAGE IN EXHIBIT "A" FOR TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE; SETTING THE HOURLY RATE OF PAY, MILEAGE, AND OVERNIGHT LODGING REIMBURSEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH F.S. 112.06.................................................................................128 VAB Clerk Terri Collins -Lister explained the revised language changes in Exhibit "A" for the Tangible Special Magistrates, spelling out the County rate for mileage was .0445 cents per mile, the meal reimbursement amounts, and replacing the wording under Section 2.3 Lodging Expenses at a rate not to exceed $100. 00 per with at the actual reasonable cost of a hotel for overnight stay. 2023 VAB Organizational Meeting Minutes August 16, 2023 -5- Page 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved the revised language in Exhibit "A" for Tangible Personal Property Special Magistrate. 14. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL VAB POLICIES AND PROCEDURES...........................................................................................................129-141 VAB Clerk Terri Collins -Lister discussed the purpose of the Indian River County VAB in creating Local VAB Policies and Procedures and highlighted the policies in place to provide petitioners with guidance in the VAB process. ON MOTION by School Board Member Jones, SECONDED by Commissioner Earman, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) adopted the Local VAB Policies and Procedures as presented. 15. DESIGNATE THE VAB ATTORNEY TO MAKE DETERMINATION FOR LATE FILE GOOD CAUSE REVIEWS AND LATE FILE RESCHEDULE GOOD CAUSE REQUESTS ON BEHALF OF THE FULL BOARD, PURSUANT TO DOR RULE 12D- 9.015 (1 1)(D), 12D-9.019(5), and 12D-9 (b), and (7). '4%1ON MOTION by Commissioner Earman, SECO DED y' chool Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved to designate VAB Attorney Michelle Napier to determine all good cause reviews on behalf of the full Board, pursuant to DOR Rules 12D -9.015(11)(D), 12D-9.019(5), and 12D-9.021(6) and ( 16. DESIGNATE T ATTORNEY TO REVIEW ALL SPECIAL MAGISTRATES' RECOMMENDAT S FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Wykoff, SECONDED by School Board Member Jones, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved to designate the VAB Attorney Michelle Napier to review all Special Magistrates' recommendations for legal sufficiency. 17. DESIGNATE THE VAB ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORIENTATION ON HEARING GUIDELINES, EVIDENCE EXCHANGE, A REVIEW OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND CURRENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES. ON MOTION by School Board Member Jones, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Wykoff, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved to designate the 2023 VAB Organizational Meeting Minutes August 16, 2023 -6- Page 5 VAB Attorney Michelle Napier to provide Special Magistrate Orientation on Hearing Guidelines, Evidence Exchange, a review of the Florida Administrative Code and Current Practices and Procedures. 18. APPROVE THE VAB CHAIRMAN TO REVIEW AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF 2023-2024 VAB INVOICES ON BEHALF OF THE FULL BOARD. ON MOTION by Commissioner Earman, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Wykoff, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Citizen Member Curren absent) approved the VAB Chairman to review and authorize payment of VAB invoices o 'alf of the full Board. -7- Pq 11 N 0 A T m C O O O O O p O O O O O pp O O O O O O pp O O O pp A N N N N N N tJ N N N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W w W W W ►� -+ N �O O b O O OOppOCp to Os Os pp O p A W N N N a 0 0 C, A to ON to t0 00 1j, w N w to -1 N W W O W ►+ �-' O N W O w N W W W O W W N N W N W �+ N W p� N O O O O O O O O O O O O $ S O O O O C S O O O O O O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O O O W O O O O W O W O w +' O - O N �+ N o 0 0 C> 0Op O 00 «-� N ww J �-. A S N .-� N w O J Na o A O O O O O %O W N S S O S O lNA O O O O N, W S O P N W O 000 O O O O w to O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 O A O- O O O p O ►- 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O S O O O O O O S O O O O O O O O O O S S ON o O O O O OO? QQQ OO O 00 w J -+ tT 00 .- ..• N O� A O ++�� J N to .-v� J do �- v� �'oyzarW PO tTI °i > o ° o y x z r � to ►C z b tm n z O n z ►C " d z pmp t, r dr r n n y Cn � v x Y a a � c < N 69 W 69 60 69 69 69 69 b4 69 60 C 0000 69 69 b9 69 N N CA ►.+ to 69 64 69 69 N N W 69 69 69 r"be s .e CD CD 'D A N - w Op pp+ J� �O •• prpoo �- to LA CN _ .ttipp J �O J rr N w — 7 a ro�o A VvJi OJo N O J w P? +� O w VP roNo .�twit W w vfD N W J --. w i.� C �o A ON -+ to C1 O to �O tr-� O� IJ O J O J N 00 .-� 0%�O 00 -+ N0 N M-' J J N .r N 00 to N w W w CD C J A w w C W 00 rn � Y. �p � n "' N 69 6�9 69 69 N N rV�i U 69 69 69 6369 69 W 69 69 W5 69 69 69 < iJ �O �-+ �O A N �-+ Oo Q� r-+ A \O � r-•• �' to (J N N � �l �O �l p N w a� �D 0+ w to ON 00 ON oo o 00 to oo r -- A N ►-+ oo N � J w A A �--A to w� 00 A J r 1 O w �1 � p, ON tA ON C% w r.' L4 A I j fJ1 O J N .O� �O 00 r -- O\ N pp N J J i�► w to to Ot 0o tT ON w O tT O w Oo J �fl W Co ao to 00 O C 69 O' C 00 a 0 6) 6s 69 69 69 bs 69 69 6s 6 9 6 9 69 69 69 69 000 69 69 f/'1 . N Vii A 65 65 C 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 .- 0 0 to O� t0 O O O 0 zd Cil Cil Cil Ctf CilC� Cr! Ciy Mby Cil t�i7 Y p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Cif Est ��' C`i� yro Cr! d d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l7 -08 �=3 a G 0�-q 0 0 G 0 0 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 kilTRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION E F.A.C. FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Indian River County. ❑✓ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. See sections 193.155 8 I , 194.036, 194.171 2 , 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-001 Parcel ID 33390300010008000016.0 Petitioner name VALDES EDGAR Property 2175 33RD AV The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Action Value presented by property appraiser Value after Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 147,230.00 147,230.00 147,230.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 147,230.00 147,230.00 147,230.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1 147,230.00 147,230.00 1 147,230.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition ✓❑ Homestead ❑ Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference❑ Qualifying improvement ElChange of ownershipor control Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Claudette Pelletier Claudette Pelletier 11/30/2023 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/06/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at E AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-001 11M Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact: The Petitioner, Edgar Valdes, appeared, was sworn and testified. Margo Maxwell appeared for the Property Appraisgr, was sworn and testified. Mr. Valdes has a Texas Driver's License and a Texas Auto Registration. The possession of a out of state license and tag indicates that a taxpayer is not a permanent Florida resident for Homestead purposes. Although the Petitioner indicates that he didn't know a Florida license was a requirement, the statute is quite clear. T e Petitioner did apply for a Florida license January 21, 2023 but did not obtain it prior to January 1 of 2023 in order to qualify for 2023. Conclusions of Law: The petition for the homestead exemption is denied in that the petitioner did not qualify as a permanent Florida resident as of January 1, 2023 in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 196.015 and 196.012. f 2023-001 Page 2 of 2 -10- A,j FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION F.A.C. The petitioner is:[?] taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition in Indian River County. ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-002 Parcel ID 32392000004000000061.0 Petitioner name RAHAL MARIA C Property 6070 45TH PL The petitioner is:[?] taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address [I other, explain: VERO BEACH, FL 32967 Decision Summary Q Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 383,558.00 383,558.00 383,558.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 383,558.00 383,558.00 383,558.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 383,558.00 383,558.00 383,558.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition ✓❑ Homestead ❑ Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference BQualifying improvement ❑ Change of ownership or control Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Claudette Pelletier Claudette Pelletier 02/07/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/19/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at [j] AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at Hvab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-002 - 11 - Page 1 of 2 2023-002 -12- Page 2 of 2 DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ 17 ' VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff. 01/17 FMDA The actions below were taken on your petition. W] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-007 Parcel ID 31393400000003000001.0 Petitioner name SOMMERS FAMILY LAND FARM LLC Property 8010 43RD AV The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32967 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition [0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 965,341.00 965,341.00 965,341.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 253,656.00 253,656.00 260,796.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 253,656.00 253,656.00 260,796.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Claudette Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Claudette Pelletier Print name Terri Collins -Lister Print name 02/09/2024 Date 02/12/2024 Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board I Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Print name 2023-007 - 13 - Date of decision Date mailed to parti Page 1 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ V R. 01/ 17 ' VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff.01/17 D The actions below were taken on your petition. W) These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes, Petition # 2023-015 Parcel ID 33390100005022000049.0 Petitioner name HARTY JACK ANTHONY Property 555 CATALINA ST The petitioner is: Z taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition [0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,701,976.00 1,327,975.00 1,259,316.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,559,782.00 1,185,781.00 1,117,122.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,509,782.00 1,135,781.00 1,067,122.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Sehr Print name Terri Collins -Lister Print name 02/26/2024 02/26/2024 Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at Hvab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to partie7sl 2023-015 -15- Page 1 of 3 .. Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-015, The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted:a hearing that occurred on Nov 15, 2023 for tile' correctness of e 2023 Just/Market Value of 555 Catalina St (33-39-01-00005-022.0=00049.0) in Vero Beach: The Special I agistra ; clerk (Terri) and representatives from the Iridian Riven County: Property Appraisers Office (PAO) were physically present in the hearing room. On a conference call for the petitioner (PET) were Stephen Boyle the representative a well as Jack Harry (owner). Both parties presented' evidence: in support of their:opinions for the subject value.; The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page; list of:evidence, information request letter, evidence exchange 121x:-9 020 document,. methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, case law pages, subject , property card, subject photo, comparable grid, location map: of subject/comparables, comparable property cards, + photos of the comparables, construction draw sheet, photos from -subject street, land sales gridJand sale map and. } subject tax roll correction pages. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was considered: j . The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal on a GPAR form, construction draw -page, check pages; one -line: grid df older sales with the MLS sheets and hand written address-location/size-of dwelling pages. Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the PET provided an appraisal report with six sales. Two of the six were shared with the PAO: The PET indicated the subject is larger than the typical home inti the market and should be considered a super aid eq Y. They provided a handwritten page showing most dwellings to:be:below 3500 sf. The page indicated approx. 3°/« of: e homes between 4000-5000 sf with less than 2% above 5000 sf. Majority of the older dwellings in the market are ow _. . 3000 sf. As this may be typical of the older homes the newer construction dwellings. in the area on the larger parcels have bgen increasing in size taking advantage of the :larger parcel :sizes. PET sale 2 :was built in 2002 and is also a larger dwel g at 5167 sf. The SM is aware that dwellings the subject size are rare; however, they are marketable and do sell with similar DOM (days on market) as the: other smaller dwellings. i The SM reviewed the data and does'not consider the subject living area size to be a super adequacy. The two car E garage at over a 1000 sf may be a Isuper adequacy compared to a typical 2/3' car garage. The 7 bathrooms. are a supe adequacy compared to the older dwellings; however, the newer dwellings and renovations have increased the typic number of bathrooms. Shared sale 3004 Golf View Dr has 4 bathrooms and was. -built in 1960. The PET provided older sales in a one -line grid with some MLS sheets: This data is not useful for this valuation as they are transactions from 2019 and prior which show lower price per sfvvalues which would need time trend adjustments. No trend data was provided to indicate wherethese values would be on the effective date of Jan 1 202 The country club does have mostly older dwellings being:an:established community. The subject:being a larger dwelling is getting more common with homes built on vacantparcels or when older dwellings are razed. f PET sale l is shared with the PAO as their sale 5. The PAO and property card have 2929 sf and the PET appraisal 3350 sf. The size reported by the PET does not appear in: the.records:and is not known where thatsze was obtained,:: PET sale 2 was the only dwelling submitted that was larger than the subject; The quality adjustment of $129,175 did not have supporting MLS photos. The PET did provide the old MLS from 2019 for this sale (data sheet only, no photos); but did not provide the current one. The adjustment is also an odd amount at 10.4$% of the -sale price. PAO did not qualify this sale for the 2023 tax roll upon:verification of the :tri msaction: PET sale 3 was adjusted for a superior parcel size which does not appear warranted based on the other comparable parcel sizes and their adjustment or. lack of., Sale 6 is an older transaction which closed 19 months prior to the effective date. The PET did make a time trend adjustment; however, there were more recent sales:to utilize:: The PAO had 7 sales in their grid which was a price per. sf analysis. The: PAO provided a land :sale analysis which had one 2022 vacant parcel sale around the comer from the subject which -had a higher price per sf than the PAO land assessment for the Subject. .. The PET commented on condition of comparables which no documented evidence was provided. The PAO stated they did not have. access to MLS for condition. The PAO 7 sales return a valueof $1,472,839 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf Removi�g PAO sale 2 being a 2023 transaction and the high- sale price per sf is $1,422,18b:: The PET 6 sales return a -value of 985,789 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf. Removing:' PET sale 6 being an older May sale and the low:price per sf:is $1,0:13;064. These values are calculated with the incorrect sf reported: for PET sale 1. The PET first five sales with the sf on record for sale 1 is $1:,077,744. This data would indicate there is probably condition/adjustment issues on both sides, -hence the SM deemed the best 2023-015 }6 - - - Page 2:of 3 valuation to be utilizing the price per sf from the PAO 6 sales (removing the high 2023 sale 2) along with PET sales 1 through 5 (removing PET older sale 6). The ten combined sales return a full value of $1,481,549 :and after the 15% cos. is $1,259,316. As no supporting data was presented on the condition of the comparables the adjustments afire not deemed credible! supported. The PET commented that they reviewed the data;:` however, they did not present the MLS prior to the hearing. The comments in the addendum were general and did not detail the condition of the comparables. The PAO provided rebuttal data via email the morning of the hearing. This data was not accepted for the hearing as the PET objected to the data. It was aerial photos from 201:8, 2020 &2022.:: This data was discussed by both parties and not included in the valuation as the PAO data was attempted to be added the morning of the hearing and the PET condition/MLS data was not uploaded prior to the hearing also. The subject Just/Market value was $1,701;976 prior to the hearing and corrections to:the subject size in the records:: The subject Just/Market value in the evidence after the PAO made corrections to the size of the subject was $1-,327975 Which is still higher than the ten sales presented by both'paides. In:conclusion, it is the magistrate's opinion that the -M & PE sales provided sufficient credible data to determine a supported Just value for the subject. Factoring all the evidence provided, $1,259,316 is a supported Just Value for the subject. The PET request for: a value revision from the original $1,7.01,976 is approved.based on the.evidence presented. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2023-015: ' Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumptionof correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the'assessment, the admitted evidence must prove -b a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation: methodology complies with Section 193:�i 1, Florida Statutes: and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes : d professionally accepted appraisal practices. Turther,: competent substantial evidence: of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists iii the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. :. 2023-015 _ 17 _ Page 3-of 3 FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196,151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-027 Parcel ID 32403100007004000007.0 Petitioner name WHITE MICHAEL E Property 466 DATE PALM RD The petitioner is: Z taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition [Z Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,084,390.00 804,021.00 762,895.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,084,390.00 804,021.00 762,895.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,029,390.00 749,021.00 707,895.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 17 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Scott Sehr 04/04/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 04/04/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed toarties 2023-027 Page 1 of 3 -18- Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-027: The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 15, 2023 for the correctness of th 2023 Just/Market Value of 466 Date Palm Rd (32-40-21-00007-0040-00007.0) in Vero Beach. The Special Magistra e, clerk (Terri) and representatives from the Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO) were physically 1 present in the hearing room. On a conference call was Stephen Boyle the representative for Michael White the petitioner (PET). Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject value. The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, list of evidence, inf tion request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.420 document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors: consider document, case law pages, subject property card, subject photo, comparable grid, location map of subject and comparables, property cards and photos c f the comparables. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was considered. The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal on a Fannie Mae 1004/Freddie Mac 70 form, property card and MLS fo 356 Date Palm Rd. Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the PET provided an appraisal report with four sales and the PAO grid had four sales with 1 sale in common. The PET provided an additional sale from the subject street that also sold in 2021.Only the property card and MLS sheet were presented on the additional sale. The subject has 1728 sf of GLA per property card and appraisal. The appraisal indicates the subject is in,average maintained condition which is supported with the photos. The subject is not a tear down/full reno in poor condition. The PET commented on condition of comparables which no documented evidence was provided. The PAO stated th� did not have access to MLS for condition. The PAO provided four sales from the market area. Sale 1 as reported in their grid had the incorrect size per the property card that has 1545 sf (grid has 1281 sf) which changes the price per sf to $588. The four sales after correction to sale 1 had a range from $542 to $654 per sf. PAO sale 4 appears to be superior to the other comparables as evident by the much higher sale price/price per sf. The PET four sales alone do not appear credible as they would indicate only a $5,000 increase in value from the i subject sale price in Oct 2021. The PET appraisal addendum stated a 2% monthly increase throughout 2021, hence { they adjusted their sale 2 for contracting in Dec 2021. The PET commented on the increase for only the first few months of 2022 and then values went sideways. The PET provided an additional sale from the subject street which also sold in 2021. The size of this property is 1204 sf in the records with the porch being glass enclosed and not having solid walls, hence the size is calculated on the 1204 sf. This would be $573 per sf which puts it in line with PAO sale 1, shared sale 2 & sale 3. { i The PAO 4 sales return a value of $877,975 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf. Removing PAO sale 4 being the high outlier is $850,435. The PET 4 sales return a value of $620,935 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf. Removing PET sale 2 being the low outlier is $686,420. This data would indicate there is probably condition issues on both sides, hence the SM deemed the best valuation to 1 be utilizing the price per sf from PAO sales 1, shared sale 2, 3, PET sale 1 and sale 4. The five combined sales return a} full value of $897,523 and after the 15% cos is $762,895. This value is reasonable allowing for an approx 12% increase in value since their purchase to the effective date of Jan 1, 2023. The subject Just/Market value was $1,084,390 prior to the hearing. The PAO data had a Just/Market value of $804,021 which is higher than the data shows indicating a revision is warranted. In conclusion, it is the magistrate's opinion that the PAO & PET sales provided sufficient credible data to determine a supported Just value for the subject. Factoring all the evidence pr9yided, $762,895 is a supported Just Value for the i subject. The PET request for a value revision is approved based ori the evidence presented. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2023-027: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to 's establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of th evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology.complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes an professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence fails to prove `by a preponderance of the 2023-027 Page 2 of 3 -19- evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes d professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulative) meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and prpfessionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the i record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value.: 2023-027 -20- Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. W] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425,' Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-028 Parcel ID 33401600020000000035.0 Petitioner name CLARK E MCMICHAEL JR Property 1614 WSANDPOINTE PL The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition Z Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,037,253.00 1,037,253.00 994,638.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,037,253.00 1,037,253.00 9947638.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 987,253.00 987,253.00 944,638.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. FA Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 03/14/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/18/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-028 -21- Pagel of 5 i Finding of fact for petition number 2023-028 List of Property.Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: ...George Clark, representing the: Property Appraiser's Office; :appeared in person. The evidence submitted b the Property Appraiser A included 4 pack es The y p tty pp (P ) P , first was 20 pages and. included a sales chart with he subject and. 4 .comparable sales, an aerial map of the sales and- the subject; a map and analysis of vacant land sales, an insurance quote for the subject property, photographs and property ` �'ap p. information cards for the. subject and comparable sales. The second package of 34 pages included various court cases. The third package of 21 pages included MLS and Zillow listing information and photographs for the subject and the comparable sales. The fourth package, 8 pages, included a summary of the evidence, an information request letter, and information regarding Florida Statute -193.:011. The above evidence was in Axia. The above information was admitted in to evidence at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: E. Michael Clark, the property, owner, appeared by Zoom. The petitioner submitted 5 pages of evidence -in to Axia: The -5page evidence package included an email to the VAB, a chart: summarizing the "Current Market Value" (CMV- the just value on the property record cards): of 19 properties: in I Sandpointe West and a ratioanalysis of the CMV verses the subject's: CMV, an email responding to the Request for Evidence, a survey of the subject; and the Settlement Statement for. the purchase of the sulhject. This evidence. was in Axia and admitted in to evidence at the hearing. Overview of the Subject Proper y: The subject property is a single -family residence located at 1614 W Saodpointe Pl. in Vero Beach, FL. The subject was built :in 1997 and contains 2-331 square :feet a (SF) of air-conditioned area:(base area), a two car garage and a pool.:The house. is located on a single lot. Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser:.: Page 1 2023-028 -22- Page 2 of 5 i I I The PA established the just value for -the property at, S 037,253 or $44:5:SF. The PA testified that the subject recently sold for $1,307,500 ($561 SF).in July. 2022. j The PA presented: four (4) comparable sales of single-family. residences :in the general area. Two comparables were from within the subject's subdvision.:The other two comparables were from subdivisions: to the north: The comparables. sold ranged from $1,225,000 to $1,600,000 or from. $407 SF to $529 SF. (:The average salerice of the 4 comparable sales was $488 SF. No adjustments were applied to p - p J pp the comparable sales. A preliminary value estimate for.the subject properly was. not established. A 15% .cost of sales (COS) was :not deducted froth the sale: price of each comparable sale.) According to the:FA, based on the average- of the 4:.. comparable sales of $488 SF, the subj.ect's just°value of $1,037,253 or $445 SF { (which includes a COS reduction) was supported. The PA also:presented information on 13 vacant* land sales in the market area. The purpose was to show.that the subject's land assessment- was reasonable Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner:.. The petitioner requested' a market (just) value for the property at $963,125 or. $414 SF. The petitioner testified that they :purchased the property at: the peak of the market, had a very short time to close, and didn't get an appraisal and, as a result; overpaid. The: chart provided by the petitioner included 19 tax comparables. The petitioner testified that based on the CMV of the tax:comparables,-they are ever assessed by 7.5% more than the average ofthe .tax comparables. (No comparablesale' were. presented by the petitioner.)' Rebuttal Testimony: i The PA testified that the: property: was purchased for $1,307,500, and the market (just) value is set at -$1,037,253 or 79% of the purchaseprice.: The petitioner testified that their assessment is one of the highest in the Sandpointe:neighborhood. No other new evidence was presented by either:*arty that wasn't discussed :daring the presentation of evidence. .' Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: Page 2 { 2023-028 :Page 3 -of 5 i The comparable sales presented by the PA were applicable for: the analysis and. valuation of the subject property. The comparable sales were based on the recorded sale price. No COS deduction_ was made to the :comparable sales. The 4 comparables sales indicated a range from $407: SF to $529 SF with an average of $488 SF. The PA did not establish a preliminary: value for the subject property based on the sales presented. The petitioner testified that they overpaid for the property at the time of purchase. The purchase price of $1,307,500 equated to $.561 SE This was above the sale price per square foot: of all of the comparables:presented by the PA. Hd ever,: it is noted that the subject has the smallest SF of living area of all the. comparables. This partially accounts for the higher purchase price per SF.. Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates section 19.3.011(8) which provides for the PA to deduct a cost.of sale .(COS) in arriving.at just.value assessments and requires the :PA to present evidence showing IAA's COSdeductions as reported on Form DR -493 because.such deductions were applied in:ruaking just value., assessments and are professionally accepted appraisal practices In addition, to not.make a COS deduction to the subject property, the PA would not adhere to section: 194.301(2)(a)3., F.S., which precludes -the: SPA, in :appraising the petitioned :. property, from using appraisal practices that. are arbitrarily different from the ... . appraisal practices the PA applied to the comparable properties within the county. Because a preliminary value was not established by the PA and a COS .deduction was not shown in the analysis of the comparable sales, the presumption of correctness for the assessment was not '.established. The admitted evidence: from the PA did not prove :by the preponderance of the evidence;that the property. ` appraiser's just value methodology: complied with the first and eighth criteria of section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted: appraisal practices. Based on the comparable sales presented by the PA, the average sale,price of 4 comparables was $488 SF. Considering that the subject property did: sell in 20225 and the living area of the subject is approximately 16% smaller thaii'theaverage of the comparables and the purchase price per SF bf the subject is -`approximately. 15%q. higher than the average :of the comparables, it is. reasonable. to include the sale of the subject in the revised analysis. The average We. price of the 4 comparables plus the subject equates to $502 SF. Applying $502 SF to the subjects liying*arta of 2,331 SF results in a preliminaryvalue of $1,170,162. Deducting a:1S% cos#of sale, based on the DR -493 submitted to the DOR by Indian River County for the 2023 Assessment, indicates a revised just value of $994,638. Page 3 2023-028_ _ Page 4 of 5 ;dust value can ne estaousnea aecause the recora corxains wMpelenE suostanUal � evidence of just value, that meets the necessary criteria and supports the justvalue .. j as of January 1. The establishment of the revisied just value is: authorized by law: under section 194.301 F.S. and as a result, it has:been applied in t... administrative review. i Provisions of section 194.301,. F.S. required that -the:' just valuation standards of section 193.011; F.S.; which includes.the eight:criteria, must be followed regardless of whether the property was sold, the valuation approaches :used, whether single property, appraisal techniques or mass appraisal techriques:were used. To not apply, when otherwise warranted,: the eighth criterion in an administrative review because the property has not sold or based on the valuation approach or technique used, would result in an ar ftrary appraisal practice under subparagraph 194.301 (2)(a)3 FS. Therefore, it has been. applied :in this: administrative review. Asa result of the revised just value applied. in this administrative review, the petitioner is granted partial relief. i. Page 4 2023-028 - 25- Page 5 of 5 rii! FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-029 Parcel ID 32403200013000100001.0 Petitioner name STEPHEN BOYLE Property 705 HIBISCUS LN The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025 10 , F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,000,766.00 778,680.00 778,680.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 692,829.00 778,680.00 778,680.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 692,829.00 728,680.00 728,680.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values maydiffer. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Scott Sehr 02/15/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/19/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed toarties 2023-029 Page 1 of 3 -26- Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-029: The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 15, 2023 for the correctness of 2023 Just/Market Value of 705 Hibiscus Ln (32-40-332-00013-0001-00001.0) in Vero Beach, The Special Magist clerk (Terri) and representatives from the Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO) were physically present in the hearing room. On a conference call was Stephen Boyle the representative for Giovanni Mazzeo the petitioner (PET). Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject value. The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, list of evidence, information request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9 document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, case law pages, subject property card, subject photo, comparable grid, location map df subject/comparables ,property cards with photos of comparables, land sales grid, land sale map and a summary page. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was conside The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal on a Fannie Mae 1004/Freddie Mac 70 form and MLS for three 2023 sales. I Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the PET provided an appraisal report with three sales and the PAO grid had four sales with no sales in common. PET sale 1 has a smaller parcel which was not adjusted as it was not on A 1 A per PET. The PAO commented on this sale having $76,000 worth of permits pulled right after closing. The relisting of this property after renovation is not ` applicable as it would then require significant adjustments for condition as well as the statement from the PAO that t e owner wanted a quick sale. Sale 2 is on AIA, albeit the west side of the street and is mislabeled for distance from the subject in the appraisal report. It is much larger in size and did not have a pool. Sale 3 is mislabeled for distance from the subject and is also north of the subject approx. a mile (0.2 miles S in appraisal). This property has a smaller parcel which was not adjusted as it was not on AIA per PET. This sale did not have a pool. This comparable contracted in 12/21 and sold in 01/22 with no time adjustment as -made in the prior hearing which the PET commented that this sale was utilized in the Mr. White hearing. The PET provided MLS for three additional 2023 sales which were all along AIA; however, on the west side of AIA,, These were all after the effective date of valuation. The PAO had 4 sales in the grid with a price per sf analysis. Sale 1 is similar in size, east of AIA (not directly on Alt!) with a pool. The PET verbally indicated this had some superior updates (millwork, impact windows). Sale 2 is next door to the subject, much larger in size and appears to be in superior condition as indicated by the highJr sale price. I Sale 3 is across the street from the subject, sides AIA like the subject with a pool; However, much larger in size. The PET verbally commented that it is in superior condition to the subject and the PAO rebutted that this property is be;; renovated after the sale. Sale 4 is west ofAIA, smaller in size and does not have a pool. The PAO presented a land analysis grid with 4 sales that were purchased and to be torn down/razed for new construction. Land sale 3 is a higher value from its location on Lady Bug Ln which the SM deemed is a superior parol and did not consider in the valuation. Sale 1 is most similar in size; however, with smaller front footage and longer I depth. This property had a land value of $976,650 after the 15% cos. This sale provides support for the subject value with the PET comments of average condition as the property on this site was razed. The PET commented that this lot 1 could be split which warranted a higher value. This may be. possible; however, the zoning still indicated single family, and at time of sale was 125 x 140 in dimensions. The intent of the buyer was not known and presented as factual j evidence. Sale 2 lends support with its narrower front footage. Sale 4 has smaller front footage and location on the west side ofAlA. The PET commented on condition of comparables which no documented evidence was provided. The PAO stated they, did not have access to MLS for condition. Both sides commented on properties being renovated/updated after the 202 sales. Neither party presented evidence for condition of the comparables. The PAO provided four sales from the market area. The four sales, after had a range from $485 to $696 per sf. The foul sales return a value of $952,237 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf. PAO Sales 2 & 3 are i much larger than the subject. PAO sale 3 being across the street when adjusted for size using PET $100 per sf amount and the 15% cos still leaves around $100,000 for some superior condition factors. The PET 3 sales return a value of $533,179 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf. 2023-029 -27- Page 2 of 3 The data indicates there is value difference from the east & west sides of AIA as well This data would indicate there is probably condition/adjustment issues on both sides, hence the SM deemed the best valuation to be utilizing the price per sf from the most similar size properties. The data also indicates there is a value difference from the east & west sides of A l A as well. The SM calculated all 7 sales from both parties which returned a value of $772,641 (3/4 /0 lower PAO value). The SM stratified down to PAO sales 1, 4 and PET sale 1 being most similar in dwelling size with all having smalh parcels and not directly on AIA. These three sales return a value of $868,846. This value is higher than the PAO revised value after their adjustments since Trim. All seven sales are close to the PAO revised value (3/4%diff6ent) which does not require any additional revisions. The subject Just/Market value was originally set at $1,000,766. Prior to the hearing the trim notice was reduced to 778,680 (trim notice dated (08/23/2023). This was not updated in the Axia system prior to the hearing. This indicates that a revision was warranted from the initial Trim notice to the supported value of the second Trim notice. { In conclusion, it is the magistrate's opinion that the PAO estimate of value is adequately supported and the PET failed to overcome the evidence presented by the PAO based on all the data presented. Factoring_ all the evidence provided, 3 $778,680 is a supported Just Value for the subject. The PET request for a lower valuation is denied based on the evidence presented. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2023-029: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of,, correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving -that the admitted evidence fails to prove by a ,. preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore the appraisal should be upheld. 2023-029 -28- Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION FLORIDA Indian River 'County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-030 Parcel ID 32400700022003000125.0 Petitioner name STEPHEN BOYLE Property 450 BEACH RD 126 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition [Z Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D -9,0H(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 6,553,944.00 6,553,944.00 5,276,249.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3,194,123.00 3,194,123.00 3,194,123.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 3,194,123.00 3,194,123.00 3,194,123.00 All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Scott Sehr 01/09/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/05/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed toarties 2023-030 Page 1 of 3 -29- I Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-030: The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 15, 2023 for the correctness of th� 2023 Just/Market Value of 450 Beach Rd #125 (32-40-07-00022-0030-00125.0) in Vero Beach. The Special 1 Magistrate, clerk (Terri) and representatives from the Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO) were physically present in the hearing room. On a conference call was Stephen Boyle the representative for David Coolid�e III the petitioner (PET). Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject value. + The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, list of evidence, information request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.00 document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, case law pages, subject property card, subject photo, comparable grid, location map of subject/comparables and comparable property cards. 1 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was considered. The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal on a Fannie Mae 1073/Freddie Mac 465 form and four additional pages f subject photos. Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the subject is two condominium units that have been combined into on large unit. The two separate living areas appear to have been joined by a circular staircase. The units can be separate back to original. The subject has been renovated/updated. The PET provided an appraisal report with five sales. Four of the five were shared with the PAO. The PET additional sale (sale 4) that was not shared by the PAO was due to being a single-family detached dwelling with no ocean/beach views. It may have a large parcel which is a non -factor as it not comparable to the subject other than its size above 3000 sf. The PET did not apply an inferior view due to the large parcel and being east of AIA which are not factors that cancel out the water views. j PET sale 1 was added to the PAO sales as comparable 8. This was a large dwelling that is a townhouse with a distant water view being back off the beach some. This sale has a private pool shared with the adjoining townhouse unit.Th subject buildings of 450 Beach Rd share a large pool for the three buildings and the other buildings have pools forth residents. The other three sales from the PET were condo units that were smaller due to the subject being combined from two j units. The PET applied adjustments in their grid with comments that were referenced from the John's Island private sales office. The PET did not provide any of the physical/digital data for verification of the adjustments for this hearing. The PET commented on some of the PAO sales selling over list price which is indicative of an increasing trend which contradicts his other comments of the market being sideways after March 2022. The PAO provided eight sales which shared 4 with the PET. The PAO had seven condo unit sales and also included th� PET townhouse sale 1 as their 8th sale. +. The PAO presented their valuation based on a price per sf. The sales as discussed at the hearing have various levels of updating with most being similar high quality like the subject. The PET appraisal clearly shows the subject being renovated with high quality finishes. The subject does not suffer from functional obsolescence being combined of two units as it has two kitchens, 5.1 bathrooms, 5 bedrooms which if re -divided the units would be similar to the other units in the project at 2000+/- sf. The PAO had 8 sales which ranged from $1,260 to $2,238 per sf. Utilizing the price per sf of all 8 sales returns a valui of $5,575,001 for the subject size after the 15% cos is applied. The PET 5 sales had a price per sf range from $1,177 to $2,238 per sf. The 5 sales return a value of $5,284,861 for th4 subject after the 15% cos. i The SM noted in the data that the $2,238 price per sf sale is much higher than the other sales lending support of this 11 sale being a high outlier. PET sale 4 which was the detached single family with no water views was the low price per j sf at $1,177 per sf. Utilizing the six condo units (removing the high $2,238 sf and the shared townhouse unit) returns a value of $5,435,127 after the 15% cos. The six sales plus the shared townhouse sale returns a value of $5,276,249 after the 150rl cos. The SM did not have supporting data for any of the comparables to support condition adjustments'. The comparables submitted appear to have varying levels of updating based on their sale prices/size. There would possibly be some variation for views/floor & building locations. The subject does have a direct east water view with no obstructions, even on the first floor. The subject 1st floor patios were enclosed which the PET included in the GLA (PAO most likely does not include in the property card). The 2023-030 Page 2 of 3 -30- comparables vary by floor location from the 1st to the 3rd which may warrant an adjustment. The SM considered all the data presented by both parties for the subject valuation. The SM deemed the best comparables to be the six condo sales (minus the high outlier of $2,238 sf utilized by both parties) with the inclusioi of the shared townhouse sale to incorporate the size, obstructed views, more private pool and overall privacy of two units in the building. These seven sales return a value of $5,276,249 after the 15% cos. The subject Just/Market value from the trim notice was $6,553,944 which is higher than the data indicates for the subject. The PAO made an offer to the PET prior to the hearing which was rejected. The data presented by both parties indicates a revision to the subject Just/Market value is warranted. In conclusion, it is the magistrate's opinion that the PAO & PET sales provided sufficient credible data to determine supported Just value for the subject. Factoring all the evidence provided, $5,276,249 is a supported Just Value for th subject. The PET request for a value revision from the original $6,553,944 is approved based on the evidence presented. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2023-030: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness.' For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of d evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology, complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes ai professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser failed to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes ai professionally accepted appraisal practices. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2023-030 Page 3 of 3 -31- DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 91 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036, 194.171(2),196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-042 Parcel ID 33380200001012000002.0 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LTD Property 8825 20TH ST The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address HALLANDALE BEACH, FL 33009 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 293,119.00 293,119.00 293,119.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 293,119.00 293,119.00 293,119.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 293,119.00 293,119.00 293,119.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 01/16/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/27/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board VAB clerk or representative Print name Date Date mailed to 2023-042 -32- Page 1 of 4 Finding of fact for petition number 2023-042 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: Billy Auton, representing the Property Appraiser's. Office, appeared in person. The Property Appraiser (PA) submitted an .evidence package that consisted of 46 pages. The evidence included the property: record card for the subj&t, a summary of the testimony, an information request letter, information regarding the: 8 Criteria considered by the Property -Appraiser per Florida Statute 193.011, an aerial of the subject, 5 comparable sales summarized in a chart, photographs and information regarding the comparable sales, zoning information.on the subject and comparable sales, two vacant land sales, a listing for a land sale, an income- analysis; gone rent comparable and the Commercial Market I-nsights Report by the National Association of Realtors. The above evidence was submitted into Axia and was admitted into evidence. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: Jose Quintana, from Property Tax Consultants Ltd., appeared by phone The petitioner submitted an evidence package that _consisted of 45 pages.: The petitioner's evidence included the Indian River County Property Apprr's property record card, a CoStar summary sheet=for the subject property, en income pro forma, rent comparables from:,Costar; sales comparables from CoStar, the DR: 493 for Indian River County and various information regarding -the Cost of Sale deduction. The above evidence was submitted in to Axia and was admitted in to evidence: - Overview of the Subject Property: . 840 SF officebildingThe subject property is a free standing, ,sile tenant, i .-. leased 'by Enterprise auto rental. The building wasbuilt in 1993. The site contains 0.46 acres. The property is located. 8825 20. Street (SRS 60) in :Vero Beath, FL... Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser: 2023-042-33- Page 2 of 4 i I i The Market (Just) Value assessment presented :at the beginning of the ;hearing was $293,119 or $159.30 SF. The PA presented 5. comparable sales :most of which :were single tenant office_ or retail buildings (only four of the sales were considered appticable:as one was: sold for land value). The 4 sales, indicated a range from:$224 SF to $634 SF. No cost of sale adjustment was shown or applied. The range of the: sale supported the PA's,: belief that the subject's assessed value of $293,11:9 or $159 SF was reasonable. The PA presented an.income approach. The: PA use a market rental rate of $16.00 SF NNN. The rent rate was applied to the. 1,840 SF of GBA and :resulted in an estimate of annual rent (PGI). of $29,440: A .5% vacancy and collection loss was. applied to the PGI for an EGI of $27,968. Expense of :$1.67 ,SF :or $3,076 (11%: of EGI due to the NNN lease) were deducted :and resulted in a NOI of $24,892. The net operating income was capitalized at 7.0%. (no tax load). This indicated a . preliminary value of $355,593 and was rounded to $350,000. The. PA made no deduction for the. Cost of Sale (COS) .in the income. approach. The PA concluded that the subject's assessment of $293,119:is well below the indicated value by the income approach, A_ f Only one rent comp from LoopNet was provided to support the: rental rate. The: balance of the support for the income approach was from the Commercial Market } Insights Report by the National Association of Realtors: Summary of evidence presented by the:petitioner: The petitioner valued the subject property with an income approach. The petitioner utilized a market: rental rate of $14.00 SF NNN and applied it to the gross building area of 1,840 SF. This resulted in a PGI of 525;760.. A vacancy and collection loss of 10% was applied and indicated an EGI of $23,184. Operating expenses of { $2,318 (10% of EGI), including real estate taxes; were deducted and indicated a NOI of $20,866. The NOI was capitalized at 7.0% (no tax load). This indicated a a preliminary value of $298,080. A 15% cost ofsale deduction was made for the 11 and P criteria and indicated a just value of $253,368. This was the requested just . value. The petitioner resented 2 rent comparables from Costar to su ort the p p P .:.: Pp income approach inputs. bi 1 2 1 2023-042-34 _ Page 3 of 4 j i 1. Three (3) sales from :CoStar, with sales summary sheet, and one;sale from the public record were presented. The sales ranged from $103 SF to $155 SF. No discussion or conclusion was .provided. :.a Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified, that of the comparable sales used by the petitioner were substantially larger and not considered .comparable 'to the roP subject e The property, petitioner had no rebuttal. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The presumption of correctness for the assessment was established because the: property appraiser provided by the preponderance :of the evidence that the. property appraiser's just value assessment was.arrived.atby.complying with section 193.011 of the Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The PA primarily relied on the income approach to value the subject: property.. The income approach, provided a preliminary value' of $350,000. There was: no cost of sale deduction made in the valuation, However, the just (assessed) "value of $293,119 is 16.3% less than the preliminary value estimate. As a result, even if a COS adjustment of :15% was applied to the preliminary: value, the PA's analysis would support thejust value. j Although the petitioner presented evidence that the subject property may be over i assessed, the petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence into the record to support a lower just _value and to overturn .the. presumption of correctness. The petitioner did not present actual income and expenses for the subject property to justify the income approach input. The petitioner's rental comparables were not considered similar to the subject and, as a result, did not provide a credible valuation by the income approach. Conclusions of law for petition 2023-042 The property appraiser provided by a preponderance of the :evidence that -the assessment was arrived at by complying with. statute 193.011 and professionally f, accepted appraisal practices. The admitted ,evidence :was considered relevant and credible and meets the standard of proof to legally justify the estimate of just value per Rule 12D-9.027(5 & 6) FAC. Asa result, the petitioner is denied rehtof. ' 2023-042 _ 35 - Page 4 of 4 FUMDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. W1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-043 Parcel ID 33391200015000000007.6 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS LTD Property 905 US HIGHWAY 1 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition Z Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 210,728.00 210,728.00 205,747.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 210,728.00 210,728.00 205,747.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 210,728.00 210,728.00 205,747.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. I FA Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Stephen J Boyle Print name Terri Collins -Lister Print name 01/17/2024 Date 03/12/2024 Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-043 -36- Page 1 of 5 : Finding of fact for petition nus tuber 2023-043 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: Billy Auton, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. The Property 3APraiser (PA) submitted an evidence Ia that consisted of 42 es. The evidence included the property recordcard for the sub' a summary p� Pi' P .� J� of the testimony, an information request letter,information regarding the: 8 Criteria considered by the Property Appraiser per Florida Statute 193;:011, an aerial of the j subject, 4 comparable sales summarized in a chart; photographs andinformation regarding the comparable sales, zoning information on the subject and comparable sales, two vacant land sales and a location map, a listing fora land sale; an income analysis, two rent comparables and the Commercial Market Insights Report by the National Association of Realtors. } The above evidence was submitted in to Axia and was admitted in to evidence. List of Petitioner's witnesses and: exhibits: Jose Quintana, from Property Tax Consultants, Ltd.; appeared by phone � The petitioner submitted an evidence package that consisted of 43 pages. The petitioner's evidence included the Indian River County. Property App 's property: record card, an income pro forma, rent comparables from C69fiir, sales comparables from the IRC Public Records and CoStar, theDR-493 for Indian 1. River County and various information regarding the Cost of Sale deduction. The above evidence was submitted in to Axia and.was admitted into evidence. 1 Overview of the.: Subject Property: The subject property is a free standing, single.tenant,:1-,002 SF office building leased by Enterprise auto rental. The builds ig'was built in 1964: Tho site contains 0.48 acres. The property. is located at 945 US Highway lin Vero.Beuch, FL: Summary of evidence presented.:by the property: appraiser: The Market Just Value assessment resented at the: in :of the :hearin was I P:� . g g $210,728 or $201.31 SF. s i 2023-043:: _ 37 - Page 2 of 5 i: . The PA presented 4 comparable :sales most of which were single tenant office or retail buildings (only 3 of the sales were considered applicable as one was sold for land value): The 3 sales indicated a range froinf $224 SF to $634 SF. No -cost of sale adjustment was shown or applied.:The range of the sale supported the- PA's belief that the subject's assessed value of $210: 9' or $20-1 SF was reasonable. The PA presented an income approach. The PA use a market rental rate of $20.00 SF NNN. The rent rate was applied to the 1_,002 SFof GBA and resulted: in an estimate of annual.rent (PGI) of $20;040. A: 5% vacancy and collection lass was applied to the PGI for an EGI of $19,038; Expense of $2.09: SF or. $2,094: (11% of EGI due to the NNN lease) were deducted and :resulted :in a NOI of $.16,944. The net operating income was capitalized at 7.0"x'0: (no tax load). This indicated a preliminary value of $242,055 and was rounded to: $240,00:0. The PA made no deduction for the Cost of Sale (COS)in the. income approach.:: The PA concluded that the subject's assessment of $210,72$ is well below the indicated value by the income approach. (It is noted that, if the PA had deducted a 15% COS, as shown on the DR -493, from the preliminary value of $242;055, it would have resulted in a just value indication of :$205,747:) Two rent comps, one from LoopNet and one from the MLS, were provided to support the rental rate. The comparables ranged from $19.00 SF NNN to $30.00 SF NNN. This supported the use of $20 SF NNN for the subj ect. The balance. of the support for the income approach was from the Commercial Market Insights Report by the National Association of Realtors.:: Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner valued the subject property with:' an income approach. The' petitioner utilized a market rental rate of $14.00 SF NNN and applied it to the gross building area of 1,002 SF This resulted in a PGI of $14,028. A vacancy and collection loss of 1016/0 was applied and indicated an EGI of $1'2,625.Operating expenses of . $1,263 (10% of EGI), including real estate:taxes, were deducted and.indcated a NOI of $11,363. The NOI was capitalized: at 7.0% (no tax load). This indicated a preliminary value of $162,324. A 15% cost of -sale was made for the Ist and 8'h criteria and indicated a just value of $137,975: This.was the requested just value. The petitioner presented: 2 rent comparables from: CoStar to support the income approach inputs. 2023-043 38 - Page 3 of 5 Three (3) sales froni CoStar, with sales summary sheet. -and otte sale from the public record were presented. The sales ranged from $101 SF to $155 SF. No discussion or conclusion was provided. Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified, that of the :comparable sales used by: the petitioner were substantially larger and not considered comparable to the subject property, The petitioner had no rebuttal. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The presumption. of correctness for the assessment was not established because the property appraiser did not provide by the: preponderance of the evidence that :the property appraiser's just value assessment was:arrived at by complying with . r section 193.011 of the Florida Statutes and *professionally accepted appraisal :' :: practices. The PA did not make a:cost ofsal deduction from the preliminary value estimate of $242,055. :The admitted evidence was determined to be sufficiently=relevant'and credible to meet the.standard of proof (Rule 12D-9.027(6); F.A.C.):eased on the evidence . presented by the PA the record contains competent substantial evidence that cumulatively meets the criteria of section 193.011 F.S. as necessary. to determine just value. Therefore; the special magistrate has established a.revised preliminary value for the subject property as follows. The PA primarily relied on the income approach to' value the subject property. The income approach provided a preliminary value of $242;055.. There was. no cost of sale deduction made in the valuation. Deducting: a. 15% Cos, as shown on the DR 493 for Indian River County, would result in a just value 'of $205,747. Although the petitioner presented evidence that the subject :property may =be over assessed, the petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence into the record to support: a lowerJust'value: The petitioner didnot present actual income and expenses for the subjectproperty to: justify the: income approach: input; The petitioner's rental comparables were not considered similar to the subject and, as.a' result, did not provide a credible valuation by the income approach. Conclusions of law for petition 2023-043 3 2023-043-39Page 4 of 5 As part of an administrative revieW:U der Chapter 194:Part I and III, F.S., a revised just value was established because the record contains competent substantial evidence of just value, that meets the necessary criteria and 'supports the just value as of January 1. The establishment of the revised just value is, authorized by law under section 194.301 F.S. and as'a result, it has been applied in this administrative review. Provisions of section 194:301, F.$. require. that the just valuation standards of section 193.011, F.S., which includes the eight criteria, must be followed regardless of whether the property was sold. the valuation approaches used, whether single property; appraisal techniques or mass appraisal techniques were used. To not apply, when otherwise warranted, the eighth criterion in an administrative review because the property has not sold or based on the valuation approach or technique used, would result in an. arbitrary:appraisal practice under subparagraph 194.301 (2)(a)3 F.S. Therefore, it has been applied in this administrative review. As a result of the revised just value applied fi this administrative review, the petitioner is granted partial relief. 2023-043 - 4Q - Page 5:of 5 :. FLMDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. W] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes, Petition # 2023-061 Parcel ID 30393300001000000044.0 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 12840 HIGHWAY A1A The petitioner is: [0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,167,020.00 2,167,020.00 2,167,020.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,204,178.00 1,204,178.00 1,204,178.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,204,178.00 1,204,178.00 1,204,178.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact The petitioner did not attend this hearing, did not request to have this hearing in their absence, nor did they present any evidence. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) I FA Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Sehr 11/20/2023 Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister 02/05/2024 Print name If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-061 -41- Page 1 of 2 2023-061_ _ Page 2 of 2 FLMDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. W1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-062 Parcel ID 33390300014000000000.2 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 1955 28TH AV The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 941,918.00 941,918.00 941,918.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 601,970.00 601,970.00 601,970.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 551,970.00 551,970.00 551,970.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact The petitioner did not attend this hearing, did not request to have this hearing in their absence, nor did they present any evidence. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Scott Sehr 11/20/2023 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/05/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-062 -43- Page 1 of 2 2023-062 -44- - Page 2 of 2 FLENtlDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 1213-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01117 The actions below were taken on your petition. W1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2),196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-063 Parcel ID 33391200001000400014.0 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 1541 5TH AV The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 184,516.00 184,516.00 184,516.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 184,516.00 184,516.00 184,516.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 184,516.00 184,516.00 184,516.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact The petitioner did not attend this hearing, did not request to have this hearing in their absence, nor did they present any evidence. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Scott Sehr Print name Terri Collins -Lister 11/20/2023 02/05/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-063 -45- Page 1 of 2 DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff.01/17 FLD1tfDA The actions below were taken on your petition. 91 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-065 Parcel ID 33390100037025000006.0 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC Property 1640 4TH CT The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 214,539.00 214,539.00 214,539.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 184,926.00 184,926.00 184,926.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1 184,926.00 184,926.00 184,926.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact The petitioner did not attend this hearing, did not request to have this hearing in their absence, nor did they present any evidence. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Z Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Scott Sehr 11/20/2023 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/05/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board VAB clerk or Print name Print name Date of decision Date mailed to 2023-065 -47- Page 1 of 2 2023-065 -48- Page 2 of 2 DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ 17 ' VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff.01/17 FLEMIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. W3 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes, Petition # 2023-068 Parcel ID 32400700005000000202.0 Petitioner name THE KUSKO FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHI Property 400 BEACH RD 202 The petitioner is: Z taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 476,985.00 465,250.00 465,250.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 193,600.00 193,600.00 193,600.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 193,600.00 193,600.00 193,600.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. 17 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 03/01/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/05/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision VAB clerk or Date mailed to 2023-068 -49- Page 1 of 4 Finding of fact for petition number 2023-068 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits Christie Noonan, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in:person The evidence submitted by the Property Appraiser (PA) included 3 submittals. - The 16 page submittal included an information request letter; information regarding Exchange of Evidence and Florida Statute 193.011 a. sales chart with he subject: and 4 comparable sales, a floor plan layout: of the building, an aerial showing, the location of the sales and the subject, and the property record cards for the subject and comparable sales. The 2 other submittals were an email and a letter requesting the evidence to be presented at the hearing The above evidence was in Axia and was admitted in to evidence at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits*, Jim Kusko, the property owner, appeared by Zoom. The petitioner did not submit any information or evidence in to Axia. Overview of the. Subject Property: The subject property is a condominium located at 400 Beach Road, Unit 202 in Indian River Shores, FL; The subject's building.was built in 1972 and contains 116 units. The subject unit contains 590 square feet (SF) of air-conditioned area (base area). The unit does not have:a balcony and=has no water view: i Summary of evidence presented by _the property appraiser: The PA established the just value_ for the property :at $465: 50 or $989 SF:: . The PA presented four (4) comparable sales of units in1he subject's building. All of the units contain 590 SF. The comparables sold in the ranged from $545 -000 to $1,225,000 or from $924 SF.to $1.885: SF. Two of the sales were oceanfront unit and were not considered comparable to the subject): The two -+ether sales were ( ra p .. b j )� interior units and sold from $924 SF to $935 SF. (The average sale price of the 2 comparable -sales was $950 SF.) These two. units did have balconies. Na .... adjustments were applied. to the comparable -sales. A preliminary value estimate for .... .... Page 1 2023-068 _9 _ Page 2:of 4 the subject property was not established. A 15% cost: of sales (COS) was: not deducted from the sale price of each comparable. sale. According to the PA, the comparable sales support the subject's just value of $465,2 50_ or $789 SF The _PA testified that the initial just value was :$476;985 but was lower :for not having.a. balcony. Summary of evidence presented by the petitioners The petitioner testified that he owns 1 of only 4 units in the complex that do not have a balcony. The petitioner testified that unit 201; that has. no balcony, sold. on 2/28/2020 for $184,000 and unit: 211, that has no balcony, sold on 12/8/2020 for $197,500 and unit 111, that has a patio, sold. in::7/2023 for $400,000:.No additional comparables sales :were presented by the petitioner. Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified: that the sales comparables in 2020 are too old and that their valuation was based on the. 2022 sales. The. petitioner testif ed ahatthe 2023 for . $400,000 should be considered and due to the lack of units with: balconies, the older sales should be considered. No othernew evidence:was presented by either party that wasn't discussed during .the. presentation of evidence. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: Two of the comparable sales presented by the PA were applicable for. the analysis and valuation of the subject property. The.comparable sales were based on the recorded sale price. No COS deduction was mare to the comparable sales. The 2: comparables sales indicated a range from $924 SF to $975 SF with an average. of $950 SF. The PA did' establish a preliminary value for the subject property based on. the sales presented. Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates_ sect ion 193.011(8) which provides for the . PA to deduct a cost of sale (COS) in arriving at just value assessments and requires the PA to present evidence showing PA's COS deductions as reported on Form DR -493 because such deductions were applied in:making just value assessments and :are professionally accepted appraisal practices. In addition to not make a COS deduction to the subject property, the PA would not adhere to section 194.301(2)(a)3:,:F.S., which precludes thePA, in appraising the petitioned property, from using appraisal practices that. are arbitrarily different from the appraisal practices the PA applied.:to the comparable properties within tate county. Page 2 2023-068 51 - Page 3:of 4 i i Because a preliminary value was not established: by the PA and a COS deduction was not shown in the, analysis of thecomparable sales, the presumption o correctness for the assessment was not established. The admitted evidence from the PA did-not prove by the preponderance. of the evidence thatthe property appraiser's just value methodology complied with the. first and eighth criteria. of section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices::: Establishing a preliminary value for the subject based on using the average sale price of the two comparable sales presented by: the PA- at $950: SF, and :deducting: a 15% COS, results in a just value for the subject:of $808 SF.or $476,250. This is above the just value of $789. SF or $465;250 for the. subject. Although the petitioner presented: evidence that the subject property may beover assessed, the petitioner did not present: competent substantial evidence into the. record to support a lower just value. The 2020: sale presented were not adjusted for market appreciation and the July 2023 sales was:after the. date of value of 1/1/2023.. Conclusions of law for petition 2023-068 As part of an administrative.review under Chapter 194.Part I and III,.F.S., a revised just value can be established because the record contains competent substantial evidence of just value, that meets'the necessary criteria and supports the lust value as of January 1. The establishment of the revised just value is authorized 'by law under section 194.301 F.S. and as*result, it has been applied in this administrative review. Provisions of section 194.301, F.S. require that the just valuation standards of section 193.011 F.S., which includes the eight criteria, must be followed regardless of whether the property was sold, the valuation approaches used, whether single property appraisal techniques or mass appraisal techniques were used. To not apply, when otherwise warranted, the eighth criterion in an administrative :review because the property has not sold or based on the. valuation'. approach or technique used, would result in an arbitrary appraisal practice udder subparagraph 194.301 (2)(a)3 FS. Therefore, it has been applied in-this administrative review. Asa result of the revised just value applied in this sdministrative.review, thePA estimate of just value is upheld and the petition is denied. Page 3 2023-068 -52- Page 4 of 4 DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ 17 ' VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2),196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-069 Parcel ID 33403100012000000001.0 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON LLC C/O KYLE SHEER Property 1950 SUS HIGHWAY 1 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32962 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary W] Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 5,927,523.00 5,927,523.00 5,927,523.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,927,523.00 5,927,523.00 5,927,523.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,927,523.00 5,927,523.00 5,927,523.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values, School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. I P1 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 01/06/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/14/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at Hvab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-069 -53- Page 1 of 6 Finding of fact for petition number 2023-069 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: Billy Auton, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. A summary of the evidence provided by the property appraiser (PA) included, a summary of the testimony to the Value Adjustment Board, a request for information from the petitioner, a summary of the 8 Criteria used in establishing the assessment, an aerial map of three comparable sales of manufactured home parks, a chart summarizing the three comparable sales, 2 income approaches for the subject property, the Commercial Market Insight Report dated January 2023 from the National Association of Realtors, and the property record cards for the subject property. During rebuttal, the PA provided property cards with aerial photos of the petitioner's comparable sales. With the exception of the PA's rebuttal evidence, the above discussed evidence was contained in Axia. This evidence, along with the rebuttal evidence, was admitted into evidence at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: Flanagan Bilton LLC, the owner's representative, did not appear but requested by email that the evidence to be considered. The petitioner submitted an evidence package consisting of 49 pages and an e-mail requesting to have the evidence for the petition heard on the record at the hearing. The evidence submitted consisted of a cover letter with the subject's requested value of $4,605,523, a property summary, 2 pages of the property record card for the subject property, the Final Reconciliation showing the requested (just) value, a property record card for each of the two (2) most comparable sales, a chart summarizing 8 comparable land sales, information regarding the DR -493, additional information regarding Florida Statute 193.011, the Property Tax Oversight Bulletin PTO 11-01 regarding the Stn Criteria, and several other memorandums, letters and examples regarding the Cost of Sale (COS) adjustment. The above discussed evidence was contained in Axia and was admitted into evidence at the hearing. 2023-069 -54- Page 2 of 6 Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property is a 183 unit manufactured home community known as Midway Estates. The property is located on the east side of US Hwy 1. The address is 1950 S US Hwy 1, Vero Beach, Florida. The community is located on 27.4 acres. The community was originally developed circa 1960 and includes a clubhouse and other common area improvements. Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser: The Just Value assessment presented at the beginning of the hearing was $5,927,523 or $32,391 per site. The property appraiser (PA) presented 3 comparable sales of manufactured home parks that sold in the range of $70,383 to $160,584 per site. The comparable sales were presented in a sales chart. No adjustment grid or analysis was presented and no conclusion was stated from the comparable sales presented other than the range of the sale price per site and the subject's assessment at $32,391 per site. It was noted that comparable sale 2, which sold August 2021 for $12,880,000 or $70,383 per site, was the sale of the subject property. The PA noted that the current assessed value for the subject property is approximately 50% of the recent sale. No other discussion or analysis was provided regarding the comparable sales. In the income approach, the PA used $900 per site per month for the rental rate. This resulted in a potential gross income of $1,976,400. Vacancy and collection loss of 10% was deducted from the PGI and indicated an effective gross income (EGI) of $1,778,760. The PA noted that, per the park manager, the rental rate in the park ranged from $964 to $1,014 per month. The rental rate included utilities except electric. Expenses were estimated at 10% of effective gross income for management and 40% of effective gross income for all other expenses, for a total of $889,380. This resulted in a net operating income of $889,380. The PA used a capitalization rate of 6.0% and 8.0%. Capitalizing the net operating income at 6% resulted in a preliminary value of $14,800,000 (r). The PA made no deduction for the Cost of Sale (COS) in the income approach. If deducting a COS of 15% it would result in a just value indication of $12,599,550. Capitalizing the net operating income at 8% resulted in a preliminary value of $11,100,000 (r). The PA made no deduction for the Cost of Sale (COS) in the 2 2023-069 -55- Page 3 of 6 income approach (on the evidence presented), but did discuss that deducting a COS of 15% would result in a just value of $9,435,000. The PA supported the inputs in the income approach with data from the Commercial Market Insight Report dated January 2023 from the National Association of Realtors. Based on the PA's income approach using the 8% cap rate (that provides the lowest preliminary value and just value after a COS deduction of 15%), the PA testified that the just value indication of $9,435,000 supports the subject's just value of $5,927,523. The presumption of correctness was established. Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The submitted evidence indicated a fair market value (FMV) for the property at $4,605,523. The petitioner valued the subject with a sales comparison approach to determine the just land value. The petitioner relied on the PA's estimate of the value for the improvement and added the value of the improvements to their estimate of land value. The petitioner presented 8 comparable sales of residential and commercial properties that sold within Indian River County over 2022 and the first part of 2023. Only one of the comparable sales sold in 2023. The sales indicated a sale price per acre from a low of $39,990 to a high of $158,833. The petitioner indicated that the two most comparable sales were Comparables 5and 6. Comparable 5 sold in December 2022 for $158,833 per acre. This site is 23.7 acres. The second most comparable sale was Comparable 6, which was partially developed with a mobile home park but had an industrial zoning. This property sold in March of 2022 for $130,000 per acre and is 5 acres. There were no adjustments applied to the comparable sales nor was there any discussion of the comparable sales provided. The average of these two sales, after a 15% cost of sale adjustment, was $122,754. The average sale price per acre of $122,754 was applied to the subjects 27.4 acres and resulted in a land value of $3,370,000 (r). The estimate of just land value was applied to the $1,235,532 of site improvements, as indicated on the PA's property record card for the subject. This resulted in the petitioner's requested fair market value of $4,605,523. 3 2023-069 -56- Page 4 of 6 Rebuttal Testimony: The PA presented property record cards (PRC); for 7 of -the 8 land sales presented by the petitioner. These PRCs: were admitted in to evidence. The PA testified that none of the sales were zoned for a MET and that only Comp 6 might permit a WT because it was partially developed with an' older MHP. with 11 pads and was a grandfathered use. The PA'noted :that the petitioner applied a 15% COS to each land sale. There was no rebuttal testimony provided from the petitioner. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The preliminaryvalue was established by the PA's income :approach analysis and supported the just value. The.comparable sales presented; including the sale of the subject, also supported the PA's just value asbeing reasonable: Based on a review of the evidence. presented by the PA.at the hearing, a cost of sale adjustment was not made to the preliminary value developed by the income approaches. At he hearing, the Special Magistrate asked the PA for their opinion of just value °after making.a 15% COS deduction. The.PA stated i just value of $9,435,000 for the subject property: Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates section 193.011:(8) which provides for the PA to deduct a cost of sale in arriving at just value assessments land requires the PA to present evidence showing PA's COS deductions as reported on Form DR - 493 R493 because such deductions were applied in .making just value. assessments and are professionally -accepted appraisal practices: In addition, to not make a COS deduction to the. subject property; the PA would not adhere10 section 194.301(2)(x)3., F.S., which precludes the PA,:in appraising the petitioned property, from using appraisal practices that ate arbitrarily different from the appraisal practices the PA applied to the comparable properties within the -county. The presumption. of correctness for the assessment was established because the admitted evidence from the PA did prove by the :preponderance of the evidence - that the property appraiser's just value methodology complied with the first and eighth criteria of section 193.011, F.S and,professionally accepted appraisal . practices after the 15% COS was deducted; as discussed at the hearing The petitioner's evidence did not overcome the presumption of correctness. 4 2023-069-57 _ Page 5 of 6 DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ 17 il VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff.01/17 FLONDa The actions below were taken on your petition. 91 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-075 Parcel ID 30393300001000000011.0 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS, INC. Property 12586 HIGHWAY A1A The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,181,191.00 2,181,191.00 2,181,191.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,411,166.00 1,411,166.00 1,411,166.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,411,166.00 1,411,166.00 1,411,166.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact The petitioner did not attend this hearing, did not request to have this hearing in their absence, nor did they present any evidence. Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Scott Sehr Print name Terri Collins -Lister Print name 11/20/2023 Date 02/05/2024 Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board I Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision VAB clerk or representative Date mailed to 2023-075 -59- Page 1 of 2 2023-075 -60- Page 2 of 2 DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ 17 ' VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff.01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. [2] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes, Petition # 2023-076 Parcel ID 33390400038000000001.0 Petitioner name FIRSTPOINTE ADVISORS, LLC Property 5155 20TH ST The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32966 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 5,100,616.00 5,100,616.00 5,100,616.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 5,100,616.00 5,100,616.00 5,100,616.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 5,100,616.00 5,100,616.00 5,100,616.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Rule 12D-09.21, (8) of the Florida Administrative Code, the relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. I 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Stephen J Boyle Print name Terri Collins -Lister Print name 01/29/2024 Date 02/05/2024 Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-076 -61- Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-076: The petition was scheduled for hearing before a Special Magistrate :appointed by the Indian River County Value Adjustment Board. The petitioner did not appear by the: commencement time for the hearing. No request to reschedule, with or without good cause, was. received :prior to the 'scheduled: hearing. The petitioner did not submit evidence to the Clerk of the Indian River County Value Adjustment Board for consideration by the Special Magistrate. -62- Page 2 of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01 /17 The actions below were taken on your petition. 91 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-077 Parcel ID 32392300000500000028.0 Petitioner name FIRSTPOINTE ADVISORS, LLC Property 2190 45TH ST The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32967 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,632,488.00 2,632,488.00 2,632,488.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,632,488.00 2,632,488.00 2,632,488.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,632,488.00 2,632,488.00 2,632,488.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Rule 12D-09.21, (8) of the Florida Administrative Code, the relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. I 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 01/29/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/05/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-077 -63- Page 1 of 2 F=DA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-080 Parcel ID 30382500000002000006.1 Petitioner name FIRSTPOINTE ADVISORS, LLC Property 13695 US HIGHWAY 1 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 32,878,996.00 32,878,996.00 32,878,996.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 32,878,996.00 32,878,996.00 32,878,996.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 32,878,996.00 32,878,996.00 32,878,996.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Rule 12D-09.21, (8) of the Florida Administrative Code, the relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. 17 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Stephen J Boyle 01/29/2024 Print name Ferri Collins -Lister Date 02/05/2024 Print name Date ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-080 -65- Pagel of 2 FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01 /17 The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-119 Parcel ID 31370000001155200004.0 Petitioner name VAQUERO FELLSMERE PARTNERS LP Property 12720 CR 512 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's agent address FELLSMERE, FL 32948 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 151,065.00 151,065.00 151,065.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 151,065.00 151,065.00 151,065.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 151,065.00 151,065.00 151,065.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Rule 12D-09.21, (8) of the Florida Administrative Code, the relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 01/29/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/05/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to arties 2023-119 -67- Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-119: ..... The petition was scheduled for hearing before a Special Magistrate appointed by the Indian River County Value Adjustment Board. The petitioner did not appear by the. commencement time for the hearing. No request to reschedule, with or without good cause, was received prior to the scheduled: hearing. The petitioner did not submit: evidence; to the Clerk of the Indian River County Value Adjustment Board for consideration by the Special-Magistrate. DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. W] These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-139 Parcel ID 31382400001239000026.0 Petitioner name BARBARO JOHN N Property 1355 CLEARBROOK ST The petitioner is: Z taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 295,444.00 281,681.00 281,681.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 275,119.00 275,119.00 275,119.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 275,119.00 275,119.00 275,119.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. 17 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Stephen J Boyle 02/21/2024 Print name Terri Collins -Lister Date 02/21/2024 Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-139 -69- Page 1 of 5 Finding of fact for petition number 2023-139 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: George Clark representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. The evidence submitted by the Property Appraiser (PA) included 5 packages. The 18 page submittal included a sales chart with the subject and 5 comparable sales, an aerial map of the sales and the subject, property record cards and photographs for the subject and comparable sales, the revised and initial TRIM notices. The package with 34 pages included various court cases. The package of 7 pages included a summary of the evidence, an information request letter, and information regarding Exchange of Evidence and Florida Statute 193.011. The 8 page package included the petition, property record card and emails and the last submittal was 2 pages and included the Certified Mail Receipt. The above evidence was in Axia and was admitted in to evidence at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: John Barbaro, the property owner, appeared in person. At the hearing, the petitioner provided the property record cards for the subject and the 5 comparable sales used by the PA and the property record card for the house next to the subject. This evidence was not in Axia but had been provided to the PA prior to the hearing. The PA did not object to the submission of this evidence so it was admitted in to evidence at the hearing. Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property is a single-family residence located at 1355 Clearbrook St. in Sebastian, FL. The subject was built in 2001 and contains 2,007 square feet (SF) of air-conditioned area (base area) and a two garage. The house is located on a single lot. Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser: The PA established the just value for the property at $281,681 or $140 SF. The PA testified that the subject recently sold for $325,000 ($162 SF) in February 2023. 2023-139 -70- Page 2 of 5 The PA presented five (5) comparable. sales: -of single-family residences in the subject's neighborhood. The comparables. sold in the ranged from $318,900 to $475,000 or from $175 SF to $269. SF. (The average sale price of the 5 comparable sales was $212 SF.) No adjustments were applied to: the comparable sales. A preliminary value estimate for the subject propertywas not established. A 15% cost of sales (COS) was not deducted from the Sale price of each comparable sale: According to the PA the 5 .comparable sales supportahe subject's just value of $281,681 or $140 SF. The PA testifiedthat the COS deduction was.made4n the CAMA system. Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner testified that they purchased the :property at the peak of the market, had another house under contract that fell. apart, rushed in to the purchase of the subject and, as a result, overpaid. The.petletoner provided the .property record .cards for the PA's comparables with notes on the :cards showing the various: additional features and/or recent upgrades or renovations that. were present at the time of purchase of the comparables._ The inforniation.was based on a review of the MLS listings. The petitioner provided inforination to: the PA and at the hearing regarding the repairs made to the subject after the purchase. {No additional cftparables sales were presented by.the petitioner and no analysis was. providedregarding the comparable sales.) Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified that the sales comparables ranged from $175 SF to $269- SF and the sub j ect is at $140 SF. The PA testified that;4he subjectsold .for $325.;000 and the just value is 86.6% of the purchase price. The_petitioner testified that doe to the -and and defects (repairs.required) the value should be lower. No other new evidence was presented- by either party that wasn't discussed during the presentation of evidence. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The 'comparable sales presented by the PA were somewhat applicable -for the analysis and valuation of the subject property if adjustments were applied. The comparable sales were based on the recorded sale=price. No COS deduction was made to the comparable sales. The 5 comparables sales -indicated a range from 2023-139 _ 71 _ Page 3:9f 5 $175 SF to $269 SF with an average of $212 SF. The PA did not establish a preliminary value for the subject property based on the sales presented. Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates section 193.011(8) which provides for the PA to deduct a cost of sale (COS) in arriving at just value assessments and requires the PA to present evidence showing PA's COS deductions as reported on Form DR -493 because such deductions were applied in making just value assessments and are professionally accepted appraisal practices. In addition, to not make a COS deduction to the subject property, the PA would not adhere to section 194.301(2)(a)3., F.S., which precludes the PA, in appraising the petitioned property, from using appraisal practices that are arbitrarily different from the appraisal practices the PA applied to the comparable properties within the county. Because a preliminary value was not established by the PA and a COS deduction was not shown in the analysis of the comparable sales, the presumption of correctness for the assessment was not established. The admitted evidence from the PA did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser's just value methodology complied with the first and eighth criteria of section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Based on the comparable sales presented by the PA and after giving consideration to the comments on the property cards provided by the petitioner and reviewing the Improvement Valuation (IV) on the property cards, the following was determined. Comparable 1, sold for $175 SF, and did include a covered porch. The IV for the covered porch on the property card was approximately $5 SF more than the IV for the subject's 2 porches. Deducting $5 SF from $175 SF indicates an adjusted sale price for Comparable 1 at $170 SF. Comparable 2 is a newer home that was built to the current wind code and sold for $176 SF. The construction costs new for the house was indicated on the IV at $126 SF versus the subject's cost new of $114 SF. Adjusting the sale by $12 SF provides an adjusted sale price of $164 SF. Comparable 3 is a similar age and size property but included a pool. Comparable 3 sold for $203 SF. Pairing Comparable 3 with Comparable 1 at $175 SF indicates an adjustment of $28.00 SF for the pool. Deducting the $28 SF from the purchase price indicates an adjusted purchase price of $175 SF per square foot. Based on the IV, Comparable 3 is also a higher quality house and shows a construction cost new 2023-139 -72- Page 4 of 5 at $6 SF more than the subject. Deducting the additional $6 SF indicates an adjusted sale price of $169 SF. Comparable 4 was a newer home with a pool, built to the current wind code and was not considered a good comparable at $269 SF. Comparable 5 was also a newer home built to the current wind code and was not considered a good comparable at $238 SF. Utilizing the adjusted sale price for Comparables 1, 2 and 3 indicated an average of $167 SF. Applying $167 SF to the subject's living area of 2,007 SF results in a preliminary value of $335,169. Deducting a 15% cost of sale, based on the DR -493 submitted to the DOR by Indian River County for the 2023 Assessment, indicates a just value of $284,894 which is above the subject just value of $281,681. Conclusions of law for petition 2023-139 As part of an administrative review under Chapter 194 Part I and II1, F.S., a revised just value can be established because the record contains competent substantial evidence of just value, that meets the necessary criteria and supports the just value as of January 1. The establishment of the revised just value is authorized by law under section 194.301 F.S. and as a result, it has been applied in this administrative review. Provisions of section 194.301, F.S. require that the just valuation standards of section 193.011, F.S., which includes the eight criteria, must be followed regardless of whether the property was sold, the valuation approaches used, whether single property appraisal techniques or mass appraisal techniques were used. To not apply, when otherwise warranted, the eighth criterion in an administrative review because the property has not sold or based on the valuation approach or technique used, would result in an arbitrary appraisal practice under subparagraph 194.301 (2)(a)3 FS. Therefore, it has been applied in this administrative review. As a result of the revised just value applied in this administrative review, the PA estimate of just value is upheld and the petition is denied. 2023-139 -73- Page 5 of 5 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC 0i EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Indian River County. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. See sections 193.155(8)(11),194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-141 Parcel ID 33391000039000000002.0 Petitioner name COULOURAS MANDI Property 818 41ST CT The petitioner is:[?] taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: VERO BEACH, FL 32960 Decision Summary W1 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 484,183.00 484,183.00 484,183.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 484,183.00 484,183.00 484,183.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1 484,183.00 1 484,183.00 1 484,183.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition M Homestead ❑ Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference 8Qualifying improvement ❑ Change of ownership or control Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Claudette Pelletier Claudette Pelletier Signature, special magistrate Print name Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on Address 11/20/2023 Date 02/08/2024 Date at 0 AM ❑ PM. If the line above is blank, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-141 -74- Page 1 of 2 2023-141 -75- Page 2 of 2 DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 01/ 17 ' VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Indian River County Eff.01/17 FLIMDA The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-142 Parcel ID 30393300001000000034.0 Petitioner name JAMES RANDOLPH LIEBLER Property 12740 HIGHWAY AIA The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary 0 Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 2,563,067.00 2,563,067.00 2,563,067.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,961,229.00 1,961,229.00 1,961,229.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,961,229.00 1,961,229.00 1,961,229.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 03/21/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/26/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-142 -76- Page 1 of 6 Finding of fact for petition number 2023-142 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: George Clarke and Nancy Neill representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. The evidence submitted by the Property: Appraiser. (PA):included 4 submittals. The 28 page submittal included a sales chart with"the subject and 5. comparable sales, an aerial map of the sales and the sutject, property record cards for the subject and comparable sales, a sales chart with 4 land sales, aerials of the land sales, emails to and from the petitioner and George Clark. The : emails included thepetitioner's evidence. The submittal with 36 pages included various court cases. The submittal of 7 pages included a summary of the evidence, a4. information request letter, and . : information regarding Exchange of Evidence and Florida Statute 193.0.11. The 2 pages included the Certified Mail Receipt. The above evidence was iri Axia and was admitted in. to evidence at the hearing. At the hearing, the PA submitted a history of the assessment f6f the subject. It was admitted in to evidence at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: James R. Leibler, the property owner, appeared by Zoom. The petitioner's evidence: was in the 6 pages of email exchanged with George Clarke. This evidence was in Axia as part of the PA's -evidence and had been provided to the PA prior to the hearing. The evidence was admitted ui to evidence at the hearing. Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property is a single-family residence located at 12740 Highway A I A in Vero Beach, FL. The property is located in`the Ambersand Beach:area. The parcel runs from the ocean to the: river. The subject. was built in 1,997 and contains 3,306 square' feet(SF) of asr =conditioned area.(base:aree), a tvogarage and a dock on the river. The.house is ocated on a 55 front foot: lot: Summary of evidence presented by the property: appraiser: 8. 2023-1427.7 - :.. Page 2:9f 6 The PA established the just value for the property at $2;563,067 or $775 SF. The PA presented five (5). comparable: sales of single-family resi encesui e subject's neighborhood. Four (4) of the comparables were located in the Ambersand area. The: comparables sold;in the ranged from $1,725,000 to $3,800,000 or from $742 SF to $2,778: SF. (Comparable'5 sold for $2,77:8 SF in June 2023, so it was not considered inahe valuation: The average sale:price of the 4 remaining comparable sales was $951. SF.) No adjustments were applied to the comparable sales. A preliminary value estimate for the.subject property was not established. A 15% cost of sales (COS) was not deducted from the sale_ price of each comparable sale. According to the PA, the:comparab1e sales support the subject's just value of $2,563,067 or $775 SF..The PA testified that the COS deduction was made in the CAMA system The PA also presented 4 land sales.. The land .sales range from .between. $9909000:° to $1,965,000 and sold between September 2017 and June of 2022. The :sales indicated a range from $1:0,233 FF to $29,415 FF, after the COS -adjustment; but prior to the "Depth Factor". adjustment.: After. the Depth Factor adjustment; the. range was $7,941. FF to $32,470 FF: These sales were: presented to support the subjects land assessment -at $115$,365 or:$21,062`FF. Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner testified that the Ambersand market has .limited sales and that the mass appraisal system for valuing the subject does not work. The petitioner testified that the only applicable sales from 2022 were the two sales: the Mused, Comparable :3 at $1,725,000 and the house nextto his (Compargble $3,800,000 and one land sale at 12920 Highway AIA for $1.65,000 -:(.1b -is was .19 he PA's vacant land sale Comparable 4 The petitioner also relied on th' . ?A's 2023 sale. The petitioner presented a graph from Zillow showing that the market peaked in mid -2022 and declined up to the date of value. The petitioner noted that the comparables had similar lot (land) values (assessments) and they shouldn't because of the improvements on the 466 if not new and maximize the building size, detract from. the value: The -petitioner also testified that the value of the improvements (the assessment) has increased over the last several years and that construction costs have increased, -but so has depreciation due to the location. (No additional�comparable sales were presented by the petitioner.) The petitioner requested a valuation similar to 12356 (PA's Comparable 5) or at $2,000,000 after a COS deduction. Page 2 2023-142 _ 78- Page 3:of6 Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified that the petitioner call before the hearing with a settlement offer.. The petitioner objected to the PA's statement. about the settlement off. er. (The information regarding the settlement offer was not admitted in to evidence.) No other new evidence was presented by either party that wasn't discussed during the presentation of evidence: Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The comparable sales presented by the PA were applicable for the analysis and valuation of the subject property if adjustments were applied. The petitioner's evidence was 3 of the PA's improved.sales, one of the PA's vacant land. sales. and his testimony. (The stated amount of the settlement offer was not considered in the evidence presented arid, as a result, given no weight in this finding,): The PA's comparable sales were based on the .recorded. sale price. NoCos deduction was made to the comparable sales. The 4 comparables sales (after:: excluding Comparable 5) indicated an:unadjusted range from $742 SF to- $15136 SF with an average of $951 SF. The PA did :not establish a preliminary: value, for the subject property based on the sales presented Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates section 193.011(8) which provides for the PA to deduct a cost of sale (COS) in arriving at just value assessments and requires the PA to present evidence showing PA's COS: deductions as reported on Form DR -493 because such deductions were applied -in making just value as: and are professionally accepted appraisal practices: In addition, to not make a COS deduction to the subject property, the PA would not adhere to section 194.301(2)(a)3., F.S., which precludes the PA in appraising the petitioned property, from using appraisal-practices:that are arbitrarily different:from the. appraisal practices the PA applied to the comparable properties within the county. :Because a preliminary value was not established: by the PA and a COS deduction was not shown in the analysis of the comparable sales, the presumption of correctness for the assessment was not established..The admitted evidence from the PA did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence tha the property appraiser's just value methodology complied:with the first and eighth criteria of section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Page 3 2023-142 -79- Page 4 of 6 Based on the:comparabte sales presented by the PA and after giving 1consideration to the comments and evidence provided by the:petitioner and reviewing the land value and the Improvement Valuation (IV) on the property cards, the following was determined. Comparables 1, 2 and 3 had similar land values and no: adjustment was required: Comparable 4 had a land value that was: approximately $320,400 or $140: SF A/C area higher than the subject's and value and an adjustment is. required. . ..... The subject had :an IV new of $355 SF:of.A/C area. Comparable-1, sold for: $801 : SF, and had an .IV .new of.$260 SF or .$95 SF. less than the subject. Adding $95. SF to $801 SF indicates:an adjusted sale price for Comparable I:4t $896 SF. Comparable 2 is a newer home that was built. to the .current wind code and sold for $1,136 SF. The construction-costs new for the house:was indicated on the IV at $419 SF versus the subject's cost new of $355 SF. Adjusting the sale by $64 SF provides an adjusted sale price of $1,072 SF... ° .... Comparable 3 is an older home and sold for $742: SF. The: construction costs-new for the house was indicated on the IV at $21.7 SF versus the subject's cost new. of $3:55 SF, Adjusting the sale :by $13:8 SF provides an: adjusted sale price of $850: SF. Comparable 4 is an older home and. sold for $1,126 SF due to the more. valuable . lot. Deducting the contributory value-of the:lot:of $1:40 ASF indicates an. adjusted sale price of $986 SF. The construction costs new:t'or the house was indicated on the IV at. $344 SF versus the subject's .cost. neve of $355° SF. Adjusting the sale- by $11 SF provides an adjusted sale price of $997: SF. : Utilizing the adjusted sale price for-four Comparables indicated an average of $961 SF. Applying $961 SF to the subject's living area of 3,306 SF results -in a preliminary value of $3;177,066. Deducting a I50/9=cost of-sale, based on the DR- 493 R493 submitted to the DOR by Indian River -County for the 2023 Assessment, indicates a just value of $2;700,506 which is above the subject just value of $2,563,067. Conclusions of law for petition 2023-142 As part of an administrative review under Chapter 194 -Part I and III, F S:, a revised just value can be .established because the recflrd contains competent substantial Page' 4 Page 2023-142 - g0 _ Pa e 5 of 6 evidence of just value, that meets the necessary criteria and supports the: just value as of January 1. The establishment of the revised just value is authorized bylaw under section 194.301 F.S. and as a result; it has been.applied inlhis administrative review. Provisions of section 194.301, F.S. require that the just valuation standards of section 193.011, F.S., which includes the eight criteria, must:be followed regardless of whether the property was sold, the valuation approaches used, whether single property appraisal techniques or mass appraisal techniques were used. To not apply, when otherwise warranted, the eighth. criterion in an administrative review because the property has not sold or based on the valuation approach or technique used, would result in:an arbitrary appraisal practice under subparagraph 194.301 (2)(a)3 FS. Therefore, it has. been applied in. this administrative review. As a result of the revised just value.:applied in this administrative review, the PA estimate of just value is upheld and the petition: is denied. 2023-142 Page 5 -81- Page 6 of 6 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485XC ° EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE R. 01/17 TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, Rule 12D-16.002 OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition in Indian River County. ✓❑ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036,194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-145 Parcel ID 33380900002000000287.0 Petitioner name FEREBEE DAVID WARREN Property 10149 WVILLA CIR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address ❑ other, explain: VERO BEACH, FL 32966 Decision Summary Q Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 273,050.00 273,050.00 273,050.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 158,774.00 158,774.00 158,774.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 158,774.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 0.00 158,774.00 158,774.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition 0 Homestead ❑ Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑ Use classification, specify ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑ Use exemption, specify ❑ Transfer of homestead assessment difference❑ Qualifying improvement ElChange of ownershipor control Other, specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Claudette Pelletier Claudette Pelletier 11/21/2023 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 02/14/2024 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2023-145 -82- Page 1 of 2 I I 1: Findings of Fact: The Petitioner, Deborah Bielak, daughter of the deceased, appeared by phone, was sworn and testified. The Propetty Appraiser was represented by Margo Maxwell who was sworn and testified. The exemption was denied because the surviving spouse (Bonnie Jeanne Wax) of:the:deceased Petitionehr:David Ferebee, has a homestead exemption in St.Cloud, Osceola County, Florida. Section 196.03:1, Florida: Statutesprovides that a person who is receiving or claiming the benefit of an exemption other than in in the county where: the exemption is being claimed where permanent residency is required is not entitled to an exemption provided_by'this section. Further, Article VII, Section 6 regarding Homestead Exemptions,provides that not more than :one exemption shall be allowed any individual or: f�mily unit or with respect to any residential unit. The Petitioner offered no .evidence that the surviving spouse had canceled her exemption in. Osceola County and fact, Ms. Maxwell stated that Ms.: Hielak had mentioned that the surviving spouse(Ms. Wax)was not willing to gi e. up her homestead exemption in Osceola County. Conclusions of Law: In that, the surviving spouse of David Warren Ferebee enjoys the: benefit: of a hontestead exemption in Osceola C�unty and at the time of death of Mr..Ferebee was entitled to an interest in the subject property, the Petition for the I Homestead Exemption in Indian River County:must be denied as there: cannot be two exemptions.' by: the same: fawily: unit. �. i I: i ILL iLl JT DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 01/ 17 Rule 12D-16.0 02 F.A.C. Eff. 01/17 The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036, 194.171(2),196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2023-154 Parcel ID 33403400001000000003.0 Petitioner name PATRICIA KIMBALL BARRIE Property 2020 SHIGHWAY AIA The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent address VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition [0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 26,253,939.00 25,872,648.00 22,035,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 25,995,598.00 25,619,307.00 22,035,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 25,945,598.00 25,569,307.00 21,985,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Section 196.031 7 , F.S. Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) 17 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Robert Busier Signature, special magistrate Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Robert Busier Print name Terri Collins -Lister Print name 03/14/2024 Date 03/15/2024 Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our web site at Hvab.indian-river.org/Axia2023/ I ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board I Signature, chair, value adjustment board VAB clerk or Print name Print name Date of decision Date mailed to 2023-154 -84- Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-154- At the hearing, the following individuals were present. From the Property Appraiser's Office was Robert Taylor, Alisa Barkett, John Vorderineier, and PAO Attorney Eric Barkett. The Petitioner was represented by their Attorney P.K. Barrie and Stephen M. Boyle with Boyle and Drake, Inc. After both parties were given the opportunity to be heard,. special magistrate finds property appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S.; and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. The property appraiser (PAO)submitted evidence consisting: of a comparative market analysis (CMA) utilizing seven unproved sales which closed between July 2020 and August 2022. The subject is a unit:located at. 2020 S Highway . AIA; within Vero Beach. The subject has 11;808 SF of gross living area (GLA) and originally constructed in 2022. The sales utilized ranged in price from $5,300,000 to $27,000,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000). The subject is located on a 5.10 acre lot . The comparable sales are located on lots between 1:03 acres and 5.02 acres. The size of the sales ranged from 7266 SF (GLA) to 28,793 SF (GLA). The just value determination by the�PAAdedby $25,877,648 appears generally supported by the evidence submitted. All of the written evidence and testimony the PAO was reviewed, considered and appropriately weighted by the magistrate in determining. the conclusion of law. The petitioner (PET) submitted evidence and testimony: consisting: of a Comparative Maiket Analysis consisting of six sales of improved units from the same general area; the sales closed between July 2020 and September 2022. The sales ranged in price from $8,870,000 to $27,000,000,(rounded :to nearest $1,000). The living square foot :range of. these comparables was stated to be between 6714 SF (GLA):to 28,793 SF (GLA). The site size of the comparables ranged from between 1.41 acres and 15.22 acres. The estimate of value based; on PET evidence was $20,000,000. The written evidence and testimony provided by the PET was reviewed, considered and appropriately weighted by the magistrate in determining the conclusion of law. A remarkable amount of rebutal was provided by both PAO and PET Of note from the exchange:was that PET agreed with PAO land portion of the just value and only expressed concern with building value. Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the property appraiser's evidence. Petitioner's evidence proved 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 by the property appraiser to comparable property in Indian River. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish a revised value. Based on the totality of evidence, there were several considerations. The median of the. PET sales was $21,220,000 (rounded). The magistrate is of the opinion that due to-similarites in site size and location, the most comparable_ used among the PAO and PET and shared b both was PAG-sale 4 and PET sale 6. Magistrate laces most property g ( Y ....)g� P weight on this sale. The adjustments :for: market condition and GLA made by PET to sale °6 resulted in an indicated adjusted sale price of $221034,900. A value of $22,034,900 was considered and the just value revised to $22,035,000 (PAO sale 4 and PET sale 6 with :adequate market adjustments rounded to nearest '$5,000 increment). Conclusions of Law for Petition 2023-154s Petitioner overcame the presumption of correctness established by property appraiser at the hearing (Section 194.301; F.S.]. There is competent substantial :evidence in the record to establish a revised just value of $22,035,000 [Rule 12D-9.027; F.A.C.]. The petition is granted and the assessment shall be adjusted according to this decision. CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -488 rd i R. 12/09 Section 193.122, Florida Statutes Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code FLORIDA Tax Roll Year 20 23 The Value Adjustment Board of Indian River County, after approval of the assessment roll below by the Department of Revenue, certifies that all hearings required by section 194.032, F.S., have been held and the Value Adjustment Board is satisfied that the (Check one.) ® Real Property ❑ Tangible Personal Property assessment for our county includes all property and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations of the Department of Revenue. On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached as part of the assessment roll. The roll will be delivered to the property appraiser of this county on the date of this certification. The property appraiser will adjust the roll accordingly and make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable property under the law. The following figures* are correct to the best of our knowledge: 1. Taxable value of ® real property ❑ tangible personal property assessment roll as submitted by the property appraiser to the value $ 25,392,216,359 adjustment board 2. Net change in taxable value due to actions of the Board $ 3,734,548 3. Taxable value of ® real property ❑ tangible personal property assessment roll incorporating all changes due to action of the value $ 25,388,481,811 adjustment board *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Continued on page 2 -87- 4/11/2024 Date CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -488 R. 12/09 Page 2 of 2 PROCEDURES Tax Roll Year 20 23 The value adjustment board has met the requirements below. Check all that apply. The board: ® 1. Followed the prehearing checklist in Chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. Took all actions reported by the VAB clerk or the legal counsel to comply with the checklist. ® 2. Verified the qualifications of special magistrates, including if special magistrates completed the Department's training. ® 3. Based the selection of special magistrates solely on proper qualifications and the property appraiser did not influence the selection of special magistrates. ® 4. Considered only petitions filed by the deadline or found to have good cause for filing late. ® 5. Noticed all meetings as required by section 286.011, F.S. ® 6. Did not consider ex parte communications unless all parties were notified and allowed to object to or address the communication. ® 7. Reviewed and considered all petitions as required, unless withdrawn or settled by the petitioner. ® 8. Ensured that all decisions contained the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. ® 9. Allowed the opportunity for public comment at the meetings where the recommended decisions of special magistrates were considered or board decisions were adopted. ® 10. Addressed all complaints of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 194, Part I, Florida Statutes, and rule Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C., that were called to the board's attention. All board members and the board's legal counsel have read this certification. The board must submit this certification to the Department of Revenue before it publishes the notice of the findings and results required by section 194.037, F.S. On behalf of the entire value adjustment board, I certify that the above statements are true and that the board has met all the requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and Department rules. After all hearings have been held, the board shall certify an assessment roll or part of an assessment roll that has been finally approved according to section 193.011, F.S. A sufficient number of copies of this certification shall be delivered to the property appraiser to attach to each copy of the assessment roll prepared by the property appraiser. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board -88- 4/11/2024 Date CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -488 R. 12/09 Section 193.122;'Flodda Statutes Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code 0 FLORIDA Tax Roll Year 20 23 The Value Adjustment Board of Indian River County, after approval of the assessment roll below by the Department of Revenue, certifies that all hearings required by section 194.032, F.S., have been held and the Value Adjustment Board is satisfied that the (Check one.) ❑ Real Property ❑ Tangible Personal Property assessment for our county includes all property and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations of the Department of Revenue. On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached as part of the assessment roll. The roll will be delivered to the property appraiser of this county on the date of this certification. The property appraiser will adjust the roll accordingly and make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable property under the law. The following figures* are correct to the best of our knowledge: 1. Taxable value of ❑ real property ❑ tangible personal property assessment roll as submitted by the property appraiser to the value $ 1,172,250,380 adjustment board 2. Net change in taxable value due to actions of the Board $ 0 3. Taxable value of ❑ real property ❑ tangible personal property assessment roll incorporating all changes due to action of the value $ 1,172,250,380 adjustment board *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Continued on page 2 -89- 4/11/2024 Date CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -488 R. 12/09 Page 2 of 2 PROCEDURES Tax Roll Year 20 23 The value adjustment board has met the requirements below. Check all that apply. The board: ® 1. Followed the prehearing checklist in Chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. Took all actions reported by the VAB clerk or the legal counsel to comply with the checklist. ® 2. Verified the qualifications of special magistrates, including if special magistrates completed the Department's training. 03. Based the selection of special magistrates solely on proper qualifications and the property appraiser did not influence the selection of special magistrates. 04. Considered only petitions filed by the deadline or found to have good cause for filing late. ® 5. Noticed all meetings as required by section 286.011, F.S. ® 6. Did not consider ex parte communications unless all parties were notified and allowed to object to or address the communication. ® 7. Reviewed and considered all petitions as required, unless withdrawn or settled by the petitioner. ® 8. Ensured that all decisions contained the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. ® 9. Allowed the opportunity for public comment at the meetings where the recommended decisions of special magistrates were considered or board decisions were adopted. ® 10. Addressed all complaints of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 194, Part I, Florida Statutes, and rule Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C., that were called to the board's attention. All board members and the board's legal counsel have read this certification. The board must submit this certification to the Department of Revenue before it publishes the notice of the findings and results required by section 194.037, F.S. On behalf of the entire value adjustment board, I certify that the above statements are true and that the board has met all the requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and Department rules. After all hearings have been held, the board shall certify an assessment roll or part of an assessment roll that has been finally approved according to section 193.011, F.S. A sufficient number of copies of this certification shall be delivered to the property appraiser to attach to each copy of the assessment roll prepared by the property appraiser. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board -90- 4/11/2024 Date